UK to scrap some warships, helicopters and drones

[EGDR]

HMS Northumberland is beyond repair and not really seaworthy

Pumas are close to end of life (HC2 upgrade was to see them through to the mid 2020s, and it's now the mid 2020s). It was only very recent plans which would've seen them serve to 2027/2028, before that the retirement date was already set as March 2025.

Chinooks have been worked hard and again it's more economical to replace than throw money at old airframes.

Wave class have been in reserve since early 2022. Wave Ruler has not been to sea since 2020.

HMS Albion was last at sea around a year ago, then was planned to switch over with HMS Bulwark which has been in extended readiness/maintenance since 2017 but still not ready to recommission. These ships are useful but in terms of their designed role they are arguably out of date. Modern NATO doctrine would rather have multi-purpose amphibious ships rather than the focused ones we fielded from the early 2000s which required an LPD (Albion), LSD (Bay) and LHD (Ocean) deployed together to fulfill a full amphibious capability.

Watchkeeper is a fairly old design in a world that's advanced rapidly in the past few years.

Even if these ships/aircraft are placed in reserve they still represent a cost in the budget. To keep an Albion class in reserve is apparently around £9m a year at the bare minimum.

[cat1]

lets not go too overboard. there are still a ton of harriers at Yeovilton that are just sitting in or outside the spare hangars. (anyone know what they plan to do with them? send them to Ukraine?)

[NorvilleRogers]

lets not go too overboard. there are still a ton of harriers at Yeovilton that are just sitting in or outside the spare hangars. (anyone know what they plan to do with them? send them to Ukraine?)

All British Harriers are long gone now, the few remaining are preserved or used as instructional airframes. The Sea Harriers were retired in March 2006, best part of 20 years ago!!

[cat1]

lets not go too overboard. there are still a ton of harriers at Yeovilton that are just sitting in or outside the spare hangars. (anyone know what they plan to do with them? send them to Ukraine?)

All British Harriers are long gone now, the few remaining are preserved or used as instructional airframes. The Sea Harriers were retired in March 2006, best part of 20 years ago!!

Ah I thought they moved the training frames to Boscombe, clearly not.

Thank you

[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

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

I’d imagine 893 and 704 will end up gone as well

[Finty]

Perhaps its about time folks should remember, that it was Labour that was in power when all 3 Tranche contracts for the RAF Typhoons were signed. Not that it helps right now. Chinook and Puma were already a given, and 6 Chinook have already gone anyway. A bunch of the Pumas are already at Shawbury already.

Getting rid of Old kit for new

Don't forget, it was the Tories who scrapped Harrier, Nimrod, Jaguar, Sentry and Sentinel, leaving us with huge capability gaps!

Add Tornado and remove Jaguar although to be fair, I don’t think retiring Jag left much of a capability gap. Likewise Tornado, although that had RAPTOR which I think has been partly replaced by Litening V? The rest I agree with. Can also add the reduction of the Wedgtail fleet to 3.

[Blackcat1]

Perhaps its about time folks should remember, that it was Labour that was in power when all 3 Tranche contracts for the RAF Typhoons were signed. Not that it helps right now. Chinook and Puma were already a given, and 6 Chinook have already gone anyway. A bunch of the Pumas are already at Shawbury already.

Getting rid of Old kit for new

Don't forget, it was the Tories who scrapped Harrier, Nimrod, Jaguar, Sentry and Sentinel, leaving us with huge capability gaps!

Add Tornado and remove Jaguar although to be fair, I don’t think retiring Jag left much of a capability gap. Likewise Tornado, although that had RAPTOR which I think has been partly replaced by Litening V? The rest I agree with. Can also add the reduction of the Wedgtail fleet to 3.

My Jag pilot friends might have something to say about that

[Finty]

Don't forget, it was the Tories who scrapped Harrier, Nimrod, Jaguar, Sentry and Sentinel, leaving us with huge capability gaps!

Add Tornado and remove Jaguar although to be fair, I don’t think retiring Jag left much of a capability gap. Likewise Tornado, although that had RAPTOR which I think has been partly replaced by Litening V? The rest I agree with. Can also add the reduction of the Wedgtail fleet to 3.

My Jag pilot friends might have something to say about that

Do tell… what capabilities were lost when Jaguar was retired? Genuinely curious. At the time we had Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR7 for mud moving and as for Tiffie this was just prior to Tranche 1 Typhoons getting an austere air to ground capability.

[Leuchars Fan]

Add Tornado and remove Jaguar although to be fair, I don’t think retiring Jag left much of a capability gap. Likewise Tornado, although that had RAPTOR which I think has been partly replaced by Litening V? The rest I agree with. Can also add the reduction of the Wedgtail fleet to 3.

My Jag pilot friends might have something to say about that

Do tell… what capabilities were lost when Jaguar was retired? Genuinely curious. At the time we had Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR7 for mud moving and as for Tiffie this was just prior to Tranche 1 Typhoons getting an austere air to ground capability.

The Jguars had just been extensively upgraded to the GR3/3A standard. Now can you explain why that was deemed necessary just to remove them from service only seven years after the upgrades were started? Nothing these days, they were removed simply to save money, there was no military thinking involved other than once again, how to make do with less.

From Wikipedia "?Demands by the UK Treasury to cut the defence budget led to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon detailing plans on 21 July 2004 to withdraw the Jaguar by 2007. An expected out of service date of October 2007 was brought forward at just five days notice to 30 April 2007. On 20 December 2007, a Jaguar operated by QinetiQ undertook the last British military Jaguar flight."
These aircraft weren't scrapped because they were either surplus, old or unreliable, but because of treasury darn mindedness. Because priority spending lay elsewhere. But I must say I am baffled by the number of posters on aviation enthusiasts forums like this, with the occasional exceptance of pprune, who constantly try to make the case for even deep cuts to air as well as other operational service assets and personnel. And you'll forgive me for saying so, often not without a bit of a sneer.

I posted this the other day, it disappeared for some reason, but in October 1978, I was on a liaison visit to Binbrook, the Lightnings, were by any assessment, tired and out of date. But the idea of cutting the numbers was anathema, we were told that to keep two squadrons and a training unit viable, they had 70 air worthy airframes maintained. They rotated them to ensure all three units had a worthwhile compliment with acceptable shortfalls. I'm absolutely sure, this would not be the case today.

LF

[TommyC]

Here's a more useful link for Jaguar history - actually very interesting. It's in chronological order. Just scroll close to the end for quick reference to 2007.
https://targetlock.org.uk/jaguar/service_uk.html
Sad as early retirement is, I don't agree with your view as the Jag had become very expensive to maintain. It was better to focus on expanding the Typhoon capability in my view.

[Finty]

My Jag pilot friends might have something to say about that

Do tell… what capabilities were lost when Jaguar was retired? Genuinely curious. At the time we had Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR7 for mud moving and as for Tiffie this was just prior to Tranche 1 Typhoons getting an austere air to ground capability.

The Jguars had just been extensively upgraded to the GR3/3A standard. Now can you explain why that was deemed necessary just to remove them from service only seven years after the upgrades were started? Nothing these days, they were removed simply to save money, there was no military thinking involved other than once again, how to make do with less.

From Wikipedia "?Demands by the UK Treasury to cut the defence budget led to Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon detailing plans on 21 July 2004 to withdraw the Jaguar by 2007. An expected out of service date of October 2007 was brought forward at just five days notice to 30 April 2007. On 20 December 2007, a Jaguar operated by QinetiQ undertook the last British military Jaguar flight."
These aircraft weren't scrapped because they were either surplus, old or unreliable, but because of treasury darn mindedness. Because priority spending lay elsewhere. But I must say I am baffled by the number of posters on aviation enthusiasts forums like this, with the occasional exceptance of pprune, who constantly try to make the case for even deep cuts to air as well as other operational service assets and personnel. And you'll forgive me for saying so, often not without a bit of a sneer.

LF

Agreed regarding cost cutting and short termism/ wasting money but again, what capability was lost, apart from a degree of ‘mass’? The withdrawal of Harrier Gr, Sentinel and Sentry all created capability gaps but I’m not convinced Jag being withdrawn created one to the same extent. Tactical recce and ground attack could be covered by Tornado, which by 2007 had RAPTOR, Brimstone and Storm Shadow in addition to the paveway variants.

[Leuchars Fan]

Mass alone is a quality. There seems to be a mindset that the armed forces only need to have representative capabilities. If we, NATO or whoever, finish up in a war of attrition such as is going on in Ukraine at present, HM forces won't be able to absorb the initial, certainly not sustained, shock of significant loss and expenditure. It is very difficult to quantify a minimum level but the deepest military posture has to be aimed at, not found a way around. Compounding this problem, increasingly the UK seems to face more challenges than any other to oversee the integrity of any level of defence and security.
We get dismissive language about how small the army, for example, will be just a few years ahead. This isn't good and isn't offset, as always claimed, by improved technology. We have a spiralling demand on the public purse which the government will do absolutely nothing to contain. Tax raids won't fix the problem, certainly not with the worrying culture of inertia within the employment market, rapidly expanding population, fractured cohesion and various other societal problems. You can marvel at Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Paveway etc, but if the bolt can be fired only once...

LF

[cat1]

The Jags were scrapped because the MoD saw that the Eurofighter was on the horizon and would knock spots off a jag playing its own game of ground attack, not to mention the EF could dogfight as well as any with the tornado covering the whole of the ground attack profile for a while. then that went, and the F35 replaced it.

And as Finty said, what capability does it specifically provide that the tornado didn't, and the EF and F35 doesn't?

[Vulcanone]

At 34 years old, I'd love to know what the remaining FI was on the Jaguars that 6 Squadron took to Coningsby in April 2006. Upgrading them to GR.3/GR.3A likely never had anyfactors on that. I know they kept the best airframes going till last

And I also know that when the Lightning fleet was retired most of the airframes had anything between 2,900 to 4,900 Flying hours on them. But as they were (going to be retired from.....) Dates got pushed back due to the diversion of some Tornado F.3s of ours to the RSAF. BAE did an Airframe extension giving the F.6s an extra 400 on the FI.

But at the end of the day..... Age gets you in the end

[Leuchars Fan]

The Jags were scrapped because the MoD saw that the Eurofighter was on the horizon and would knock spots off a jag playing its own game of ground attack, not to mention the EF could dogfight as well as any with the tornado covering the whole of the ground attack profile for a while. then that went, and the F35 replaced it.

And as Finty said, what capability does it specifically provide that the tornado didn't, and the EF and F35 doesn't?

I think you'e skipped reading my last post or rwo.

PS Sir, that's the usual reason all aircrat types are replaced, because they have something bigger and better to replace them with, and usually more capable. The difference in the past was, they waited until they had enough of the new ones to actually replace the old ones, rather than simply preside over a significnt contration in size.

LF

[warthog81]

Mass alone is a quality. There seems to be a mindset that the armed forces only need to have representative capabilities. If we, NATO or whoever, finish up in a war of attrition such as is going on in Ukraine at present, HM forces won't be able to absorb the initial, certainly not sustained, shock of significant loss and expenditure. It is very difficult to quantify a minimum level but the deepest military posture has to be aimed at, not found a way around. Compounding this problem, increasingly the UK seems to face more challenges than any other to oversee the integrity of any level of defence and security.
We get dismissive language about how small the army, for example, will be just a few years ahead. This isn't good and isn't offset, as always claimed, by improved technology. We have a spiralling demand on the public purse which the government will do absolutely nothing to contain. Tax raids won't fix the problem, certainly not with the worrying culture of inertia within the employment market, rapidly expanding population, fractured cohesion and various other societal problems. You can marvel at Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Paveway etc, but if the bolt can be fired only once...

LF

Very well said. Numbers matter. I remember both a USAF A-10 pilot and Indian Su-30 pilot being shocked at our early retirement of the Jaguar. The A-10 pilot described the Jaguar GR3 as the best CAS platform in NATO after the A-10 and the Su-30 pilot described the Jaguar as a usual aircraft to have. I also remember some Polish Su-22 pilots being very shocked when I told them the Jaguar force had been retired and Coltishall closed.

[warthog81]

The main issue with Typhoon is how few of them there are. After all these years just 6 actual combat squadrons at just 2 bases. I remember the cold war plan was something like 5 bases! During the 1990s from memory it was going to be 232 Typhoons and 3 bases.

Now they follow all the eggs in one basket approach with just Coningsby and Lossiemouth.

If Tempest does go ahead I wonder how few of those there will be.

[Blackcat1]

Mass alone is a quality. There seems to be a mindset that the armed forces only need to have representative capabilities. If we, NATO or whoever, finish up in a war of attrition such as is going on in Ukraine at present, HM forces won't be able to absorb the initial, certainly not sustained, shock of significant loss and expenditure. It is very difficult to quantify a minimum level but the deepest military posture has to be aimed at, not found a way around. Compounding this problem, increasingly the UK seems to face more challenges than any other to oversee the integrity of any level of defence and security.
We get dismissive language about how small the army, for example, will be just a few years ahead. This isn't good and isn't offset, as always claimed, by improved technology. We have a spiralling demand on the public purse which the government will do absolutely nothing to contain. Tax raids won't fix the problem, certainly not with the worrying culture of inertia within the employment market, rapidly expanding population, fractured cohesion and various other societal problems. You can marvel at Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Paveway etc, but if the bolt can be fired only once...

LF

Very well said. Numbers matter. I remember both a USAF A-10 pilot and Indian Su-30 pilot being shocked at our early retirement of the Jaguar. The A-10 pilot described the Jaguar GR3 as the best CAS platform in NATO after the A-10 and the Su-30 pilot described the Jaguar as a usual aircraft to have. I also remember some Polish Su-22 pilots being very shocked when I told them the Jaguar force had been retired and Coltishall closed.

“The Jaguar was at the top of its game after the upgrades & had a good few years left at the time of retirement” quoted by Wing Commander John Sullivan.

[NorvilleRogers]

Mass alone is a quality. There seems to be a mindset that the armed forces only need to have representative capabilities. If we, NATO or whoever, finish up in a war of attrition such as is going on in Ukraine at present, HM forces won't be able to absorb the initial, certainly not sustained, shock of significant loss and expenditure. It is very difficult to quantify a minimum level but the deepest military posture has to be aimed at, not found a way around. Compounding this problem, increasingly the UK seems to face more challenges than any other to oversee the integrity of any level of defence and security.
We get dismissive language about how small the army, for example, will be just a few years ahead. This isn't good and isn't offset, as always claimed, by improved technology. We have a spiralling demand on the public purse which the government will do absolutely nothing to contain. Tax raids won't fix the problem, certainly not with the worrying culture of inertia within the employment market, rapidly expanding population, fractured cohesion and various other societal problems. You can marvel at Brimstone, Storm Shadow and Paveway etc, but if the bolt can be fired only once...

LF

Very well said. Numbers matter. I remember both a USAF A-10 pilot and Indian Su-30 pilot being shocked at our early retirement of the Jaguar. The A-10 pilot described the Jaguar GR3 as the best CAS platform in NATO after the A-10 and the Su-30 pilot described the Jaguar as a usual aircraft to have. I also remember some Polish Su-22 pilots being very shocked when I told them the Jaguar force had been retired and Coltishall closed.

“The Jaguar was at the top of its game after the upgrades & had a good few years left at the time of retirement” quoted by Wing Commander John Sullivan.

He was highly unlikely to say anything other than that given he was head of the Jaguar force at the time.

[Blackcat1]

Very well said. Numbers matter. I remember both a USAF A-10 pilot and Indian Su-30 pilot being shocked at our early retirement of the Jaguar. The A-10 pilot described the Jaguar GR3 as the best CAS platform in NATO after the A-10 and the Su-30 pilot described the Jaguar as a usual aircraft to have. I also remember some Polish Su-22 pilots being very shocked when I told them the Jaguar force had been retired and Coltishall closed.

“The Jaguar was at the top of its game after the upgrades & had a good few years left at the time of retirement” quoted by Wing Commander John Sullivan.

He was highly unlikely to say anything other than that given he was head of the Jaguar force at the time.

Ok wind your neck in it was the truth though , she was!