Slartibartfast 153 Posted August 6, 2010 (edited) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7931465/RAF-to-shrink-to-World-War-One-levels.html Looks like the UK will not have a military left to fight with at this rate... even though these cuts look are only a possibility it is still a complete mess... The RAF are to take the brunt of the cuts... by possibly losing the entire Strike force of Tornado's!!! Oh and losing about 40 more Eurofighters. The last time the RAF had these numbers it was 1914!!! Also looks like a lot of programmes that have cost a lot of money ie Nimrod MRA4 and thats Billions could get binned as well. Politicians want the military when it suits them and even then don't fund them correctly, doesn't help that the politico's try and force the military to buy equipment that isn't up to the job... ie AH9 Wildcat why when we could have a fleet of SH-60's/H-60's for half the price or even get twice as many for the price... Type 45 get 2 Arleigh Burkes that work for the price... because it saves jobs here. What about the people given the equipment trying to do the job first of all!!! Or even build the kit here... And then when the military is no use anymore shove it back in its box and be surprised when the next time you require it that it can't do the job!!! Sorry Rant mode off... Just this sort of thing annoys the hell out of me... Edited August 6, 2010 by Slartibartfast Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xclusiv8 35 Posted August 6, 2010 Are you suprised? I mean with the economical crisis in the UK and all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jimbib 677 Posted August 7, 2010 That article has stated some very bizarre ideas... I highly doubt the J model Hercs will be retired at all, they're only 10 years old. No doubt they will work alongside the A400M when it arrives in service. I do not see the GR4/4A being got rid of, they would lose one of their best all weather, day and night ground reconnaissance assets, not to mention it's ground attack capability. Same goes for the Nimrod MRA4, not only will it delivery all sorts of recon capability, but like has been said, the Government have already ploughed so much money into the program, it would be foolish to back out now. (Especially seeing as the RAF have already taken delivery of one) A couple of things in this article were even more remarkable... Under the plans, the number of Eurofighter Typhoons is likely to be reduced further from 160 to 107 planes based at a single RAF airfield to save £1 billion. 107 Typhoons at a single base? That's just absurd. Not happening. While the Army is likely to lose a few thousand soldiers in the coming year, reducing its numbers to about 100,000, it is braced to lose an entire brigade of about 5,000 when combat troops withdraw from Afghanistan in 2015. What twat thought that up? But this last one made me chuckle the most... The Royal Marines also face coming under direct Army control from Navy command and the possibility of being grouped into a “super elite” unit alongside two Parachute Regiment battalions. That won't go down too well with either unit. I have to say though, I've been impressed with how the RAF have managed to acquire "special" assets under the radar and generally keep publicity to a minimum, their Shadow R.1's, Diamond Twin Stars and Britten-Norman Defenders spring to mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Julhelm 266 Posted August 7, 2010 Well that's what happens when you spend as if you were the US and you aren't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,861 Posted August 7, 2010 - plenty of this going around at the moment - even seen a few articles that suggest getting the FA-18E/F - pretty sure even a navalised Typhoon will be ahead of this if they went for the 2nd rate pants option. The UK is no longer in recesion, the banks have all announced massive profits, and the only reason David Cameron keeps telling us we are in dire strights is so he can blame Labour for the state of things (its called spin). There may be a few cuts - but I expect to see the F-35s for definate. As for numbers - in 1914 you needed about 50 planes to take out a few targets - currently you need 1 with a few PGMs. Back then you also had to counter the attrition rate of those old box kites. On the air attack side they need to be able to deal with any other AF in range and deal with the Falklands. Admittedly a massed swarm of Al quaeda Airliners might reveal some shortcomings! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derk 265 Posted August 7, 2010 It's not only the UK. Under the new minority gouvernement being assembled over here, I would not be surprised if we lose half our F16's, Leeuwarden AB and a postponement (if not cancelation) of the acquisition of the JSF. For next year flying hours will be reduced by 5000 hrs. Involvement in Afghanistan has come to an end and for a lot of tasks a couple of Cessna 172 will do, towing a banner stating that we welcome any intrusion of our airspace and everything will be paid for,as long as the intruders keep to the speed limits and do not say nasty things about people with a different sexual taste. In the mean time all sorts of politicians will go on thinking up new rules (usually stating that it has to be done because of the European Community) , so very effectively increasing the number of civil servants, all to be paid out of the money saved on things like defence...... Spending has to be reduced, I agree, but the gouvernement in my perception never really looks into the mirror,for instance streamlining a couple of huge ministries and a lot of other things that can simply be cancelled without anyone noticing the difference ... Hou doe, Derk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hokum 0 Posted August 9, 2010 My main beef is the Trident replacement... Why do we need one? It’s a nuclear deterrent... TO WHO?! It is unlikely we are going to be attacked by a state or nation who is sane enough to feel that us having nukes is a deterrent. The people/countries who would use nukes at us/ our allies are those who wouldn't care of return fire! Let’s take North Korea for an example, if they wanted to fire a nuke, us having missiles or not isn't going to scare them. Our armed forces would be in a much better state if we didn't have to buy new stuff I honestly don't think we need... I think it would make a bolder statement to the world becoming a non nuclear state than it would be to keep up with the joneses, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted August 9, 2010 A country with nukes that won't use them isn't a threat. I think after the comments made by some politicians over the years there are many enemies that genuinely believe no nuke would ever be fired in retaliation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,861 Posted August 9, 2010 My main beef is the Trident replacement... Why do we need one? It’s a nuclear deterrent... TO WHO?! It is unlikely we are going to be attacked by a state or nation who is sane enough to feel that us having nukes is a deterrent. The people/countries who would use nukes at us/ our allies are those who wouldn't care of return fire! Let’s take North Korea for an example, if they wanted to fire a nuke, us having missiles or not isn't going to scare them. Our armed forces would be in a much better state if we didn't have to buy new stuff I honestly don't think we need... I think it would make a bolder statement to the world becoming a non nuclear state than it would be to keep up with the joneses, Yeah its probably just political leverage - and would have passed less unoticed if we hadnt spent so much on wars this past decade. The point is if anyone decides to launch missiles this way - they get a load back thus assuring mutually assured destruction - a lot better than them getting away scot free - no guarantee anyone else would take out said enemy - whoever that is - could be anyone in the future who knows. Certainly if I wanted to get rid of a country using Nukes it would be a lot easier if nothing was likely to come back this way wouldn't it. In the future maybe a laser based defense system could render missiles useless - but until that day the Nuclear Genie isnt going back into its bottle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ezlead 42 Posted August 9, 2010 Typical political response,when times are tight,cut military spending. It makes it easier to raise taxes when more money is needed from the people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkippyBing 8 Posted August 9, 2010 pretty sure even a navalised Typhoon will be ahead of this if they went for the 2nd rate pants option. Never going to happen, the AoA on finals to a carrier mean you can't even see the boat. Add to that the major upgrade to the undercarriage and you could never sell it as a cost saving measure vs buying F/A-18 off the shelf. The only reason F-35 is in the running at the moment is because the RN didn't want to risk paying for a pricier carrier, now the cost saving of not buying F-35 looks like being greater than the cost of getting EMCAT* for the new carriers it's all change. They've actually resurrected the EMCAT program which suggests to me this is more than just posturing prior to the SDR. And yes, the recession may be coming to an end, but even with the planned spending cuts the UK is looking at a £1 Trillion debt by the end of this parliament, don't do what the Labour Gov wanted and confuse debt with deficit. *EMCAT is the British Electo-Magnetic Launch system, Janes had an article recently about how it was being restarted after a halt was called in '07/08. As I understand it from an article in Naval Engineering Review the team had solved some issues the USN's system had whilst having others of it's own. If anyone's really interested I'll see if I can dig it out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,861 Posted August 9, 2010 Never going to happen, the AoA on finals to a carrier mean you can't even see the boat. Add to that the major upgrade to the undercarriage and you could never sell it as a cost saving measure vs buying F/A-18 off the shelf. Us getting F/A-18s will never happen (I very much hope) - and would the F/A-18 really be off the shelf? - can you not see a situation where jobs are created to stick our own engines/avionics? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+SkippyBing 8 Posted August 9, 2010 (edited) can you not see a situation where jobs are created to stick our own engines/avionics? Oh I can, but you'd have to really f*** it up to make it more expensive than navalising Typhoon. The nose gear alone would need a complete redesign which knocks on to the whole forward structure, never mind reducing the water reactive alloy content and changing the construction to avoid galvanic corrosion writing it off over a weekend embarked. The Navalised Typhoon is basically the RAF's idea to justify buying the full production run and to try and keep more RAF FJ squadrons going. Comparing the two Typhoon has done some nice airshow appearances, Super Hornet has dropped bombs on Afghanistan. Typhoon has an upgrade to the radar in the Sea Harrier, Super Hornet has an AESA. The RN would rather have Super Hornet than Typhoon. The RAF would like to keep all fast jet flying in the RAF. Edited August 9, 2010 by SkippyBing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,861 Posted August 10, 2010 The RAF always get their way dont you know Anyway we should end up with F-35s so it shouldnt matter Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
