Telegraph: "RN And RAF Will Bear Brunt Of Defence Cuts"

#2
So much for SDSR being predicated on a long term foreign policy review. If we are only getting one aircraft carrier to replace the two and a half we have currently, then it had better not need any periods of maintenance, leave or training, nor suffer any breakdowns or other mishaps.
 

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
#3
I would look at it another way - the article is very 'wishy washy' and full of coulds / maybes / possibles. Perhaps thats because they've taken the shopping list and decided its all vulnerable - no decisions have been taken yet, so I'm unclear about how they know whats going on.
 
#4
Purple_twiglet said:
I would look at it another way - the article is very 'wishy washy' and full of coulds / maybes / possibles. Perhaps thats because they've taken the shopping list and decided its all vulnerable - no decisions have been taken yet, so I'm unclear about how they know whats going on.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting (one that's totally resistant to insecticides or swatting!).

"Defence Minister, tell us what capability you'd like us to be able to deliver over the next 40-50 years and we'll tell you what we need to do it. By the way, it takes several weeks to recruit and train a soldier or acquire a fighting vehicle, many months to acquire an aircraft plus supporting infrastructure pluse a couple of years to train the personnel to employ it effectively but 10-15 years to build a replacement ship or submarine plus supporting infrastructure and provide it with an effective ship's company. Unless you're happy to see the UK lose its cutting edge ship-building industry in which case we could probably get some suitably modified vessels off the shelf within five years or so."
 
#5
I think I've just had my question answered:

An army marches on its wallet
The Economist 22 July 2010 said:
...Some central decisions are likely to be taken in the coming days. Ministers first have to decide what kind of power Britain aspires to be: become a more or less insular country minding its own business, or remain some kind of global force able to intervene in far-flung parts of the world?

Civil servants have drawn up three broad categories for the national security council to consider today. At one end is “Vigilant Britainâ€, which sets itself a smallish set of military tasks to defend the homeland: protect its airspace and national waters, fight terrorists at home, though still retaining the semblance of a world-wide diplomatic network, the ability to stage short, small-scale interventions (usually in “permissive†environments) and a nuclear deterrent.

At the other extreme is “Committed Britainâ€, with roughly the capabilities it has now: a blue-water navy, and deep strike air force and substantial deployable forces able to wage a major war in distant places. Inevitably, the likeliest option seems to be the middle road, “Adaptable Britainâ€, though someone will probably think up a snazzier label...
 
#7
Passed-over_Loggie said:
Naval_Gazer said:
many months to acquire an aircraft plus supporting infrastructure
Months? I think I had just started school when that was still true.
Note that I wrote "acquire", not "build". For a COTS procurement solution, it would be "many months" (i.e. "a few years"), as opposed to "many years" for designing, developing and building a warship or even procuring a suitably modified COTS vessel.
 
#8
Military Aircraft (unless it's a basic transport type) are not normally available "off the shelf". Even pre loved ones are likely to need significant refurbishment and upgrade if they are to perform and survive.

An interesting low cost COTS solution is this airframe; http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/p8-poseidon-mma-longrange-maritime-patrol-and-more-02980/ All sorts of problems seem to be popping out of the woodwork making worthwhile offensive kit fit into the space and trim limits available. As its American and not British, the weaknesses aren't well documented but ShortFatOne in http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/376555-nimrod-mra-4-a-13.html#post5829269 is pretty well informed on these matters.

The heavily pushed (by Boeing) advantages, such as the large commonality with other members of the 737 family, are beginning to be found somewhat lacking. The original figures talked about 75%+ commonality. Now that they have realised that commercial aircraft aren't built to withstand hours on end at low level, in a salt-laden environment, with additional bits and pieces hanging off every conceivable spare area of real estate, that commonality figure has dropped to 35% and is still decreasing as the P8 gets further and further away from the COTS solution it was originally intended to be. And that's the rub with COTS, it's cheap so long as it does what you want it to and so long as that is what everyone else wants it to do then they get built in huge numbers and are cheap. The moment you take something like the 737, designed to do one thing and try to change it, the costs spiral.
If we think in terms of easy COTS, we have; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6816249/MoD-to-buy-22-new-Chinooks.html

In DEC 09;
The Ministry of Defence has announced plans to buy 22 new Chinook helicopters to increase air support on the frontline in Afghanistan.
Mr Ainsworth said the first 10 Chinooks would be completed in 2013,
. That is for a Type already in service. Had it been a new type, a lot of new infrastructure and training would be stretching well in to the future.
 

Latest Threads