Defence Cuts

[echo_2-7 10]

It is sad to see the Harrier retired from British service so sudden next year after more than 40 years of service. Recently, major powers in the West have such as the US and UK have been carrying defence cuts to save costs due to the financial crisis. However, countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and India have increased spending on their militaries. Why are they able to increase their defence spending whereas the West is experiencing defence cuts?

Edited December 8, 2010 by Echo_2-7

[Ulanthorn 10]

Unit replacement cots!

Thats why the gwermen Bundeswer has sold it's Leopard II A4 tanks years ago. We hat a MBT force of 4000 Tanks that is replaced in near future with a force of 400 Leopard II A6 and 410 Puma IFVs with AT Missiles as secondary armament.

And cosinde romne thing...all the countriexys you mentioned still have a hughe economic growth.

Keep in mind that the bavarian BMW company sold more cars to China this year than to the USA.

Rich and stil ermerging countries can have a big military countries with hight deficit can not anymore.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Ulanthorn

[vilas 477]

cause maybe west spend too much on army ?

east spend too few (matter of production, industry, jobs)

but later east will find that those money are half-wasted , could be spend on building hospitals, flats, civil engineering

[spooky lynx 73]

Harriers will be retired next year? Hm... I shouldn't say Tornados or Typhoons will manage Harrier's duties well.

[vilas 477]

and other thing when you say about money spend east vs west

look - east had no kevlars, goretex etc.

so now east is equipping in thing you had 20 years ago for individual soldier and it costs very much in budget

price of uniform is now 10 time bigger, no more tshirt and thick cotton and steel

cordura, goretex, kevlar etc. nvgoggles

new shoes cost more than previously whole uniform with winter jacket

[rksl-rock 1301]

Harriers will be retired next year? Hm... I shouldn't say Tornados or Typhoons will manage Harrier's duties well.

I understand why they retired the Harriers but I dont think it was the correct choice since it basically removes any sort of naval strike capability from the UK forces. Which was large part of the UK's ability to project force anywhere in the world.

Technically its a good cost saving idea since the Harrier is so maintenance intensive. It just has far too many issues to list especially when dropped into the type of sustained ops in Afghanistan. The fatigue life and spares issues alone mean that the aircraft were 'wearing' out far faster than was financially acceptable.

The Tornado, while just as maintenance prone has a larger fleet and a larger pool of qualified crew. Making it easier to use on larger sustained ops over time. But in terms of close air support role, its just not as flexible in my opinion.

When and if the Typhoon gets its full capability suite sorted it may become a suitable replacement since it will eventually have a larger weapons payload and far superior loiter/range but we won't see that until after 2015. A date that we will supposedly no longer need it since we wont be in Afghanistan anymore...

As I said before and in other threads. I think strategically, in the longer term the SDSR might "look good" but for the next 10 years I think the UK armed forces has just had most of its teeth pulled and been given a virtual wedgie. Key capabilities like the Sentinel and Shadow R1s, Nimrod's maritime roles and a Naval strike capability have been sacrificed for the sake of politics. It was a witch hunt to show up the previous Labour government.

My opinion anyway.

[echo_2-7 10]

Agreed. I still think that the Harrier is useful because of its "first strike" capability as a VSTOL aircraft. That's why I think at the earliest, 2015 is still a better time to retire it because at least the F-35 would be ready and there won't be a shortage of aircraft. As for the Nimrods, Shadows and Sentinels, what do you think would replace them?

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Tory party has always cut defense while wrapping itself in the flag screaming Rule Britania at the top of its voice and saying it is pro strong defenses. I swear there are people who voted Tory at the last election because they thought it would mean that the UK had better equipment for the troops, and even though they now realise they were tricked; like the students were by the liberal democrats on tuition fees; they will still be stupid enough to vote for the conservatives again at the next election to support our lads in the field. The torries election policy is based on the triumverate of being able to fool some the people all the time, people having short memories and if you talk with an upperclass accent people will believe you should be in power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0DUsGSMwZY

On Defense the Conservatives has always been weak in reality, saying they were pro strong defense but secretly cutting, or all mouth and no trousers as my Grandad used to say.

Margaret Thatcher was the biggest cutter of UK defense in UK history and almost lost us the Falklands as a result. If Argentina had waited just a month for Margaret Thatcher's cuts on aircraft carriers to take place, they would now be speaking spanish in the Falklands.

Now Cutter Cambell has actualy cut the aircraft carriers following up on Margaret Thatcher's philosophy of weakening the UK's defence.

The JSF looks like getting kicked into the long grass as part of a budget review and as Rock made clear the Typhoon is not yet maritime capable.

8000 cut in Army, 35% reduction in Royal Artillery, 40% Reduction inthe numbers of Chalenger II's, 6000 Fewer naval personel, reduction of four frigates and most of the helicopter assault ships and landing craft, 6500 reduction in the RAF, remove the harriers and hercules, massive closures of bases in the UK, etc.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtE8tc3zkyCLdHdacFlkekJ4QWwwUC1ObFVSQTJzX0E&hl=en#gid=0

Within a year UK defences will have been gutted and we will be down to 1/3rd of our current capability and that is just the public cuts. Like in other places that we may not speak of there are secret other cuts. Hint if you are in the defense industry, now might be a good time to look for a job in another sector or consider emigrating.

Sadly walker

Edited December 8, 2010 by walker

[echo_2-7 10]

Well, these cuts sadden me. So that means we won't see any 100% British fighter in the near future, since the Tornado and Typhoon are multi-national aircraft and the F-35 being American-made. I think this would be the first time in recent RAF history that it won't operate a locally-designed and built fighter.

[rksl-rock 1301]

Agreed. I still think that the Harrier is useful because of its "first strike" capability as a VSTOL aircraft. That's why I think at the earliest, 2015 is still a better time to retire it because at least the F-35 would be ready and there won't be a shortage of aircraft.

Even if they waited until 2015 we would be left with a capability gap. F-35C wont go on front line active status until 2019. We should get the first ones in 2016/17 but it will take a few years to get through acceptance testing to Operational & Weapons Conversion. Even then that's assuming no snags or hold ups.

Personally I think they should have halved the Harrier force down to 2 squadrons and make sure they don't rotate out to Afghanistan again. Leave that for the Tornado. Decommission 1 carrier. Let the remaining 2 carriers slog on until their next major refits at least. So 2014 and 2017 afaik (feel free to correct me if im wrong). It wouldn't have saved as much money but it wouldn't have left such a huge hole in the UK defences and cripple the RN Fleet Air Arm.

As for the Nimrods, Shadows and Sentinels, what do you think would replace them?

Nimrod - in the maritime role the RN says it can maintain the current coverage using Frigates and Merlin HM1/2s. BS in my opinion but it was their excuse to retain some of the old frigates. Without this role they would have lost more ships.

In the ISTAR/SIGINT role, it will be RIVET JOINT and specialist UAVs according to industry rumour.

Sentinel R1 - Nothing at all. Apparently we will rely on US JSTARS support. From what i've read the ASTOR system while it has its issues has proved to be incredibly effective and has a greater resolution than most of the US JSTARS fleet.

Shadow R1 - Supposedly they will be come obsolete once we get the new RIVET JOINT aircraft. I'll believe it when i see it. I find it very telling that the US are fielding very similar (MC-12) aircraft to cover the capability gap left in the Afghan theatre. Unless im missing something here - which is perfectly possible - we're just wasting even more money on RIVET JOINT when we already have the same capability that the US are now bringing in for themselves.

The JSF looks like getting kicked into the long grass as part of a budget review and as Rock made clear the Typhoon is not yet maritime capable.

Dear god, did you not read the SDSR or the RN buys F-18 thread? What on this planet makes you believe that the UK will drop the F-35 in any guise? I really want to know.

I've said this about 20 times now. EuroFighter are not and will not make a Navalised Typhoon. I've explained several times why not.

And now I'm back up in the North of England and touched base with my old mates at Salmesbury and Warton I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that BAE scrapped any realistic hope of the idea in 2006. The last study confirmed the 2005 projection that over 80% of the aircraft would need to be redesigned. A new engine variant developed, and not just thrust vectoring. A totally new internal layout on the EJ200 to allow for salt water ingestion. It would cost atleast another £2.5Billion for a max 70 aircraft + Lifetime support costs and attrition.

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!

Well, these cuts sadden me. So that means we won't see any 100% British fighter in the near future, since the Tornado and Typhoon are multi-national aircraft and the F-35 being American-made. I think this would be the first time in recent RAF history that it won't operate a locally-designed and built fighter.

The last solely British Fighter was the Sea Harrier.

Tornado development is essentially dead now. UK airframes are due to be retired in 2025. If Afghan ops continue past 2015 that will draw down to 2019-20. I think Britain will be the last country to operate it. As far as I know Germany and Saudi Arabia will retire their fleets before 2018.

You may see some British UAVs and UCAVs. But the recent Defense support agreement with France may mean that these projects become multinational as well. The industry is waiting to see exactly what the ConDems have committed us to. There aren't many real facts in the public domain yet.

Edited December 8, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[walker 0]

Hi all

As we are linking up with the French maybe the Torries intend to replace the JSF with the Dassault Rafale. With the American's considering the special relationship as a method to rip us off the JSF just does not seem worth the expense, especialy with other countries droping it, even the USMC are considering dropping it, which means the UK has to cover the majority of STOVL development costs and for insufficient technology transfer. Using the economic excuse to kick the JSF into the long grass is clearly a method of getting rid of it.

Kind Regards walker

Edited December 8, 2010 by walker

[ben_s 11]

I fear that very soon the British army wont be a formiddable force anymore, Which would be a great loss. Not that long ago our flagship was announced to be retired as well, The HMS Ark Royal.

Sad times for Britians armed forces.

[rksl-rock 1301]

Hi all

As we are linking up with the French maybe the Torries intend to replace the JSF with the Dassault Rafale. With the American's considering the special relationship as a method to rip us off the JSF just does not seem worth the expense, especialy with other countries and droping it, even the USMC are considering dropping it, which means the UK has to cover the majority of STOVL development costs and for insufficient technology transfer. Using the economic excuse to kick the JSF into the long grass is clearly a method of getting rid of it.

Kind Regards walker

Oh dear god, more un substantiated crap. There is nothing factual in that post at all. You are just speculating again. We've been through this several times before Walker c'mon.

• Which nations that are already signed up have actually dropped it?
  
• The UK hasn't been funding the STOVL dev for some time. Since May 2008 iirc. The UK's contribution was cut massively once the F-35B software was approved. The specially converted VAAC Harrier left the programme. After the next milestone in Jan 2011(?) the UK will no longer fund any F-35B specific programmes thanks to the SDSR plans.
  
• The USMC are being forced to 'consider' dropping the F-35B option not the entire aircraft simply because the UK 's switch from the B to the C means their VSTOL -B is now far more expensive. They are also now under increasing pressure from the Navy and Pentagon to consolidate with the USN onto a single type. The F-35C. Due to the 'economics of scale' this would make the F-35C even cheaper for everyone and free up production allowing for an earlier delivery of the A and C airframes.
  

It wont happen:

1. the UK government and the UK defence industry is economically and contractually committed. Its too late to back out.
   
2. I've already said this before too. The UK is the only Tier 1 Partner and the technology transfer issues were resolved serval years ago. The UK has a full tech transfer deal signed and deleiverd.
   
3. The UK cannot afford to write off the ~£5Billion already invested in the programme by the government and by industry
   

Specifically regarding Rafale;But just to continue down your line of thought. Here's a few things for your to consider and add to your "research" activities.

• Rafale was offered to various nations for export sales. Nearly all have refused or have dropped it from their competitions stating expense and high operating costs.
  
• Each Rafale deal comes with other political, commercial demands or requirments. Usually a commitment to buy more french kit or trade deals.
  
• No part of the Rafale is made in the UK which makes export to the UK highly improbable in itself. Especially since a large part of defence deals are down to technology transfer and industrial offsetting. Even the UK designed specialist fastners used in the airframe are made in france under licence because the French government wanted a solely French made fighter.
  
• All previous export deals for Rafale have forbbiden the change in the OS and weapons software that would be required to use the existing British made/specific weapons. eg ASRAAM, Brimstone, Enhanced Paveway etc. They've done this so they can sell more French bombs and missiles.
  
• Rafale's planned developement life is 10 years shorter than the current F-35 plans. With the proposed and current programme changes that may even stretch to 15-20 years longer by 2014.
  

Go do some real research. DID have a nice archive on it.

Edited December 8, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[ProfTournesol 956]

Specifically regarding Rafale;But just to continue down your line of thought. Here's a few things for your to consider and add to your "research" activities.

• Rafale was offered to various nations for export sales. Nearly all have refused or have dropped it from their competitions stating expense and high operating costs.
  
• Each Rafale deal comes with other political, commercial demands or requirments. Usually a commitment to buy more french kit or trade deals.
  
• No part of the Rafale is made in the UK which makes export to the UK highly improbable in itself. Especially since a large part of defence deals are down to technology transfer and industrial offsetting. Even the UK designed specialist fastners used in the airframe are made in france under licence because the French government wanted a solely French made fighter.
  
• All previous export deals for Rafale have forbbiden the change in the OS and weapons software that would be required to use the existing British made/specific weapons. eg ASRAAM, Brimstone, Enhanced Paveway etc. They've done this so they can sell more French bombs and missiles.
  
• Rafale's planned developement life is 10 years shorter than the current F-35 plans. With the proposed and current programme changes that may even stretch to 15-20 years longer by 2014.
  

Sad but true. We're absolutely unable to sale this plane abroad, a "Concorde like" story again.

[rksl-rock 1301]

Sad but true. We're absolutely unable to sale this plane abroad, a "Concorde like" story again.

Its a shame because its a very nice and capable aircraft. But like everything, politics ruins it. :p

Edited December 8, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[walker 0]

Hi all

I refer you to the Oxford Research Group:

...The planned British purchase of F35 strike aircraft in combination with the carrier programme will be more of an imperial throwback than a real contribution to Britain’s security.

The entire UK carrier/F-35 programme should be cancelled. Replacements might include two much smaller sea control ships utilising the rapidly developing UCAV (drone) technologies, with a much scaleddown purchase of one of the F-35 alternatives currently available.

The real problem here is that a serious review of Britain’s security cannot be done if the future defence posture is already dictated by Trident replacement and the carrier/F-35 programme. The right option therefore is to scale down the existing Trident force, review its replacement and cancel the carrier/F-35 programme before much more money is wasted...

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/MayEn10.pdf

As Always follow the link to the original text in full

Note the date of that analysis. :)

The key problems with JSF are cost it is just too damn expensive and too much of that money is going outside the UK to pay for it. I doubt the project would be worth it at half the cost. If we went for a Euro-fighter option more of the cost would recirculate in the UK economy.

The other major factor is that manned aircraft anyways are probably out of date technology. The US and many other countries heck even Iran and China are switching to UCAVs for their next generation of attack aircraft.

The Torries are saying the UK really has to reconsider whether this project has any real value to UK defense in the current economic climate on what is seen as a very one sided contract hence the decision to cut the project:

UK To Cut F-35s, Drop Nimrod and Sentinel

By: Chris Pocock

October 26, 2010

Military Aircraft

The UK is to cut its planned acquisition of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) by up to two-thirds, switch versions and delay introduction of the aircraft. A Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) made public on October 19 also scrapped the RAF’s Harrier STOVL (short takeoff, vertical landing) combat jets and the Nimrod MRA.4 maritime patrol aircraft, which is just entering service...

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/uk-to-cut-f-35s-drop-nimrod-and-sentinel-27020/

As Always follow the link to the original text in full

Kind Regards walker

Edited December 8, 2010 by walker

[dm 9]

If we went for a Euro-fighter option more of the cost would recirculate in the UK economy.

That is all... FPDR

[rksl-rock 1301]

Hi all

I refer you to the Oxford Research Group:

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/MayEn10.pdf

As Always follow the link to the original text in full

Note the date of that analysis.

Yes. well before the ACTUAL date of the SDSR announcement. Over 5 months before.

And to be honest, from my own point of view not a very informed speculation at that. It really is just an opinion piece with little or no actual or verfiable facts or figures involved. It proves absolutely nothing and as far as I can see so does nothing to support your claim of Navalising the Typhoon or the cancellation of the F-35 programme.

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/uk-to-cut-f-35s-drop-nimrod-and-sentinel-27020/

As Always follow the link to the original text in full

Kind Regards walker

And this link is supposed to prove what?

If you read it its actually a regurgitation of the SDSR announcement published by the UK MoD. Something I posted in the BS RN F-18 thread over a month ago. Something that backs up the position that the UK is still buying the F-35C in smaller numbers than was originally planned for the F-35B. Something we all knew would happen over 18 months ago when a leaked report suggested that numbers would have to come down by 50-60% due to costs.

And at no point does it mention the actual Navalisation of the Typhoon. Or the cancellation of the F-35 or any probable replacement. So what is your point?

Walker, please just drop it and move on. Its getting embarressing now.

Edited December 8, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Hi all

I refer you to the Oxford Research Group:

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/MayEn10.pdf

As Always follow the link to the original text in full

Note the date of that analysis. :)

Yes, it's dated May 2010, prior to the publication of the SDSR which said categorically that we will get F-35C. The facts published by the Gov and MoD in the SDSR completely nullify the speculative opinion of some research group.

We're getting F-35C, not navalised Typhoons, Rafales, or Super Hornets. How many times does it need to be spelled out to you?

[echo_2-7 10]

With Britain pulling out from the F-35B, I think Italy and Spain and perhaps India seem to be the only other potential countries to operate it from a carrier besides the US since they are the only countries with experience of seabourne jet VSTOL operations other than Britain and Russia.

[rksl-rock 1301]

With Britain pulling out from the F-35B, I think Italy and Spain and perhaps India seem to be the only other potential countries to operate it from a carrier besides the US since they are the only countries with experience of seabourne jet VSTOL operations other than Britain and Russia.

I doubt India will buy into JSF. They are committed to the Mig29K for the Navy. Its not even in the running for the Air Force's MRCA contract. And perhaps most importantly I cant see the US approving the (Stealth) technology transfer, even a limited one, with a nation that has such close ties with Russia.

As far I remember Spain has yet to officially commit to any sort of "interest" but given their own budget issues i doubt they will bother. They were having funding issues over the last batch of Typhoons recently so, I suspect they will just run the AV-8Bs they have until they cant do it any longer. They have the same issues with their own carrier that we (UK) have with ours. They are too small for the F-35B to operate from.

Italy are probably the only remaining F-35B contender outside of the USMC. They built the Cavour carrier with the B in mind so I think it shows a larger degree of intent/commitment there but i can see the price increase being a real concern for them.

I was talking to an old (EuroFighter) friend on Skype last night. He currently works for BAE at Fort Worth on the F-35. He thinks that the USMC will try to push the F-35B no matter what, no matter the price so it can retain its "independence" from the US Navy. The UK's switch to the F-35 was a blow to the B's team and the USMC but it wasn't exactly a surprise. There have been rumours and official hints for over a year that it would/could happen at some point. The feeling amongst the F-35 team is, if the ConDem government hadn't forced the SDSR through in October the announcement would have been made in 2011 anyway. The rumours were that strong and consistent for them to be day dreams.

[Tankbuster 1747]

When cbeebies gets too realistic, there's always Walker.

[Dwarden 1125]

one of main failures of modern naval fleets was not retrofiting or contructing ships with nuclear reactors ...

the cost of fuel burned by naval fleets is huge and saves from 'fuel' will return fast in terms of years

now before You start going wild about 'omg nuclear' ...

remember that modern low yield or mobile reactors (submarines etc.) are more safer and 'eco' friendly than any gas , oil powersource ...

the cost to run and support fuel hungry ships is actually reason they are and will be trashed asap in most navies all around world (You will see rapid increase in this trend) ...

it's time to get clean and modern ...

[rksl-rock 1301]

one of main failures of modern naval fleets was not retrofiting or contructing ships with nuclear reactors ...

the cost of fuel burned by naval fleets is huge and saves from 'fuel' will return fast in terms of years

now before You start going wild about 'omg nuclear' ...

remember that modern low yield or mobile reactors (submarines etc.) are more safer and 'eco' friendly than any gas , oil powersource ...

the cost to run and support fuel hungry ships is actually reason they are and will be trashed asap in most navies all around world (You will see rapid increase in this trend) ...

it's time to get clean and modern ...

Quite a few of the newer generation of Offshore Patrol Vessels are now running on Hydrogen Fuel cells.

[Dwarden 1125]

Quite a few of the newer generation of Offshore Patrol Vessels are now running on Hydrogen Fuel cells.

that's good but i was speaking more about the 'bigger' vessels ;)