UK to scrap some warships, helicopters and drones

[Agent K]

……and so it begins….

Begins? it's never stopped, the previous shamble cancelled Harrier, Nimrod, tanks, reduced the Wedgetail order +++

And the previous lot got rid of the Sea Harrier the fact is, whoever is in government do not have any ideal about how to run a p*ss up in a brewery.

I'd argue that in general they do, but it's a case of (their) priorities, and in parallel it seems the heads of the armed forces do not seem vocal enough or demonstrative enough to present a case for their needs in retaining capability. If I was head of the RAF i'd immediately cancel the Red Arrows and the BBMF as superfluous non combat requirements and put those savings into needed combat equipment.

[Vulcanone]

For those that use the Elon Musk thing that was Twitter....Here is the facts more or less...

https://x.com/pinstripedline/status/1859366293553717300

[Nighthawke]

Facts - spoilsport

[Leuchars Fan]

I wonder how much Income Tax we would be paying if we kept all those aircraft. We simply have to cut our coat according to the available cloth!.

Is this an argument for a token ineffectual military posture? Do you honestly think your taxes are going to increase at all noticeably, by any attempt to avoid further shrinking of the armed forces. I take it you're opposed to any notion of an infintesmal increase in expenditure to 2.5%, by the time we're all dead. Its the defence budget fellah, the government's first and foremost priority! Poland is currently spendiing, or has confirmed an increase in defence expenditure to, 4.9%, they're the leading NATO nation in terms of military preparation, second only to the USA. We were in that position once. There seems to be a trend in thinking on this forum that if a piece of military equipment needs fixing, best save the money and scrap it. The MOD is looking for such people, or rather the Treasury!

LF

[Vulcanone]

Facts - spoilsport

Nighthawke... Blame that on working for Aerospace Publishing and also a certain publisher in Stamford...

[Leuchars Fan]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/1 ... -carriers/

Here is something else for those on the inside track to explain away as nothing to see here.

LF

[Blackcat1]

Very depressing . I’m off to the bar

[Snoop 95]

This announcement is welcome as far as I am concerned in that it gets rid of some in-service 'dead wood'. These assets are past their sell-by date, in some cases by a long way, but they do need replacing.

[raptor9]

Leuchars fan. Poland, of course doesn't have Nuclear submarines. We do. That's pretty good defence as far as I am concerned. I would be interested in as to where you would find the money for your defence strategy!.

[EGDR]

This announcement is welcome as far as I am concerned in that it gets rid of some in-service 'dead wood'. These assets are past their sell-by date, in some cases by a long way, but they do need replacing.

But they're not being replaced, 2027 doesn't count as a prospective date for replacement. In the meantime, as you'll read elsewhere, RAF Benson and RAF Odiham may close as a knock on result. Then what?

LF

So we're receiving the replacements (which will be more capable aircraft) in 2027 and the last of the fourteen ancient Chinooks probably won't be retired until 2028. In the meantime we still have one of the largest Chinook fleets outside of the US. You were saying?

Ahead of this arrival, decommissioning of the oldest fourteen aircraft will be accelerated as they reach their next deep maintenance period over the next four years.

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 20/hcws239

Poland spends less on defence than we do. Their GDP is smaller, and their spending is a higher percentage of it. We don't get the best value for money from our spending (look at Japan) and the focus should be on fixing that, not on throwing piles and piles more money at the problem and hoping it will fix it.

[Leuchars Fan]

EGDR,

This will go on and on, you won't change youe mind nor will you change mine.

[Leuchars Fan]

Leuchars fan. Poland, of course doesn't have Nuclear submarines. We do. That's pretty good defence as far as I am concerned. I would be interested in as to where you would find the money for your defence strategy!.

Russia will invade the Baltic states, for example, whether we have our Trident four boat fleet or not, what will deter is an in depth broad spectrum military capbility. Poland is a NATO member, it shelters under the US nuclear umbrella, but this alone wouldn't stop Putin from invading neighbouring countries. The nuclear deterrent counters the threat of nuclear black mail, not the pursuit of war aims at a conventional level. If that were the case, we may as well disband all conventional forces (which we appear to be doing piece meal anyway) and rely on our indomitable nuclear deterrent. I've noticed how the public defence debate has for years revolved around simply whether or not each party supports the renewal of Trident or not, and that's it. What we spend on anything is a matter of choice and priority.

[raptor9]

Leucharsfan. Fine. I agree with some of your points, but, like most politicians, you didn't answer the pertinent question.

[JLewis_Aviation]

Wouldn’t say the oldest 14 chinooks are dead wood, 674 is fresh out of fleetlands which is odd if it’s gonna be axed in March. The oldest cabs seem to be flying as much as the new cabs, unsure which ones will actually go

[Vulcanone]

Wouldn’t say the oldest 14 chinooks are dead wood, 674 is fresh out of fleetlands which is odd if it’s gonna be axed in March. The oldest cabs seem to be flying as much as the new cabs, unsure which ones will actually go

It does state they will go when next due a major at Fleetlands. Its Only the Pumas which go in March with no current replacement

[Motley]

Wouldn’t say the oldest 14 chinooks are dead wood, 674 is fresh out of fleetlands which is odd if it’s gonna be axed in March. The oldest cabs seem to be flying as much as the new cabs, unsure which ones will actually go

Its not all the oldest cabs that are going, some of them have already been retired believe ZH892 was withdrawn recently

[Leuchars Fan]

I trust we can recall being told by the Government that no decision on anything, particularly the 2.5% level of defence spending whether by 2030 or beyond, can be announced, until the current defence review reported next Spring, on 1st April I would imagine. Therefore, how are they able to release such snippets about signifcant cuts now? It isn't because 14 Chinooks are write offs, or 17 Puma HC2s. The RFA ships going may also threaten the continued existance of the aircraft carriers. Whatever expalnations people come up with, this is not boding well for the nation's security and defence posture. Past contraction and fire sale of defence assets by the Tories siince John Major, once again, are fully hoisted aboard.

LF

[NorvilleRogers]

I trust we can recall being told by the Government that no decision on anything, particularly the 2.5% level of defence spending whether by 2030 or beyond, can be announced, until the current defence review reported next Spring, on 1st April I would imagine. Therefore, how are they able to release such snippets about signifcant cuts now? It isn't because 14 Chinooks are write offs, or 17 Puma HC2s. The RFA ships going may also threaten the continued existance of the aircraft carriers. Whatever expalnations people come up with, this is not boding well for the nation's security and defence posture. Past contraction and fire sale of defence assets by the Tories siince John Major, once again, are fully hoisted aboard.

LF

There are 14 new build Chinooks on order to replace 14 older high hour airframes. The RFA ships are already retired and in storage.

[Leuchars Fan]

I trust we can recall being told by the Government that no decision on anything, particularly the 2.5% level of defence spending whether by 2030 or beyond, can be announced, until the current defence review reported next Spring, on 1st April I would imagine. Therefore, how are they able to release such snippets about signifcant cuts now? It isn't because 14 Chinooks are write offs, or 17 Puma HC2s. The RFA ships going may also threaten the continued existance of the aircraft carriers. Whatever expalnations people come up with, this is not boding well for the nation's security and defence posture. Past contraction and fire sale of defence assets by the Tories siince John Major, once again, are fully hoisted aboard.

LF

There are 14 new build Chinooks on order to replace 14 older high hour airframes. The RFA ships are already retired and in storage.

Ok,I'll admit I'm missing some detail here, so where is the story? If these assets are already signed off, as you say, why the emphasis on the money saved? I understand one of the ships was at sea only last year. Now it is surplus or beyond repair. There are certainly different takes on this story. Fighter Control seems to have a lot of people with detailed information, I had no idea that this number of Pumas and Chinooks were now airframe expired, and that is what is being impled here. Again, where is the rebuttle, because this story, while running uncorrected and Fighter Control insider knowledge doesn't count as such, the MOD needs to clrarify the situation because the press, including the those elements considered more allied to the left, have runaway with a misrepresentation.

[Leuchars Fan]

https://news.sky.com/story/uk-to-scrap- ... d-13257285

This Sky News' take on the MOD announcement, Healey simply says "out of date" Not beyond repair, or airframe expired or no longer seaworthy. And again the replacement assets aren't mentioned, apart from the replacement Chiinook, this though isn't espected, as i posted previously, until 2027. Just read through the statement from Healey, this is a straight forward monetary exercise and I would say driven by the Chancellor.