Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What is planned for UK
french stratege    3/1/2007 7:48:59 AM
Here I post what are scheduled adjustment for UK armed forces Can somebody check what have already been done in the list? Recommendations Savings Measures 1. Maritime-patrol aircraft capability to be dispensed with. This would permit the mothballing of RAF Kinloss and the disbandment of the Nimrod air wing, with a reduction of at least 1700 uniformed and 200 civilian posts. Annual savings would be in the order of £700m57. Current Nimrod MRA4 project to be shut down, with whatever savings could be achieved (probably slim, as the project is now relatively advanced). 2. Eurofighter Tranche 3 to be cancelled. This would require the agreement of European partner nations (Spain, Germany, Italy) but this could probably be obtained without great difficulty. Savings to the UK during the EP07 period would be in the order of £3bn. NOTE FROM FS: UK will likely cancell its TRANCHE 3 only if its fighter can be sold abroad like Saudis. 3. “Deep strike” capability to be mostly dispensed with. Three squadrons of RAF Tornado GR4 bombers and one of Tornado GR4A recce jets to disband as soon as possible. Antique Squadron photographic Canberras to be disbanded. Consideration given to mothballing RAF Lossiemouth and moving the Tornado training squadron to Marham in the near term. Remaining Tornados to disappear without replacement as soon as either Eurofighter or F-35 strike capability enters service. Annual savings would be in the order of £1bn immediately and £2bn from the turn of the decade.Some ability to conduct meaningless, destructive showpiece bombings would be temporarily lost. 4. The following pre Main Gate equipment programmes to be shut down without replacement. Sadly this would not free any money for spending elsewhere, but these measures together would bring the EP07 equipment plan into line with the funds likely to be available, or come close to it. Projects to be dispensed with: Selective Precision Effects at Range (SPEAR) Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW) Medium Sized Vessel Derivative (MVD) Versatile Surface Combatant (VSC) All the various successor projects to Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) 5. Type 45 destroyer programme to be halted after the six ships presently on order. 6. Remaining Type 22 frigates and Type 42 destroyers to be decommissioned without replacement in the near term. Any useful equipment (eg Outboard, close-in air defence weapons) examined for refitting in remaining Type 45s and 23s, or possibly RFA vessels. 7. Type 23 frigate force to be swiftly reduced to 8 hulls, equipped with the 8 sets of Sonar 2087 now on order. The total frigate/destroyer fleet thus to stabilise at 14 ships, with no replacement even considered before 2021. (All these ships could easily last until 2035.) This would result in annual savings of more than £1bn60. Smaller savings would be possible in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It would still be possible to assign capable escort groups to carrier or amphibous deployments, especially given that such escort groups would often be unnecessary. The only loss would be the present largely pointless single-ship taskings. Taken together these measures would remove the current EP07 budget nightmare and produce further savings of at least £40bn before 2021. Absolutely no money to be reallocated outside the MoD. 8. Immediate award of firm orders for £3bn-worth of big helicopters: Chinook CH-47F from Boeing for land-based lift and an alternative type for ship-based operations. The latter could be Boeing V-22 Tiltrotors if this programme is genuinely ready to go at last. Other solutions such as the Sikorsky CH-53K might be preferable. American types in current production are to be preferred over European solutions as unit prices will be lower and delivery quicker. This will provide a fleet of heavy lift helicopters in addition to the light ones now on order (FLynx). The need for medium lift aircraft in addition appears questionable. Existing Puma and Sea King 4 aircraft to be phased out as the new aircraft arrive. This additional money should suffice to obtain at least 30 new Chinooks and perhaps a similar number of maritime aircraft. Existing EP07 funding to be retained for purchasing further rotorcraft during the next decade. 9. Expansion of the C-17 airlift fleet to twenty aircraft. Based on prices paid for the present five, this would not cost more than £2.5bn. 10. An order to be placed for 25 new Hercules C-130J turboprop transports. This would cost in the region of £1bn. Existing order for 25 Airbus A400M European turboprops left in place, but no further A400Ms to be bought. (Particularly in light of BAE's sale of its stake in Airbus). Funding of £1bn allocated for use of Hercules/A400M as strike platforms instead of expensive, over-engineered fast jets. AC-130 gunship conversions to be considered, as well as rampdelivered precision ordnance. 11. Firm orders to be placed for two aircraft carriers with AWACS aircraft. Preferred option woul
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
streaky bacon       3/1/2007 8:17:52 AM
Think you will find that is was just an advisor paper conducted on behave of the MOD and not actual policy yet! French Stratege can I ask if you like the British or do you want the Brits to slowly slide away from world politics and allow the French to dominant future European defence matters! Its not going to happen anyway!
Quote    Reply

french stratege       3/1/2007 10:42:53 AM
You right it is an advisor paper but a lot of it has been implemented or are going to be as the ministry of defense seems to follow partly this policy like on frigates.
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    This outline............   3/1/2007 11:39:49 AM likely to change as soon as the next UK election. Therefore to speculate that this oulines UK future plans is meaningless.
The one thing I take away from this is that the UK is cutting back on home defense and is putting its money into minimal expeditionary warfare capability. This is logical, but the British should be very cautious about;
a. their deterent forces.
b. their airpower.
c. surface escorts. WAY TOO FEW FRIGATES.
I disagree that a force of 12 AAW/ASW frigates and 2 carriers is sufficient.
The minimum ratio of surface combatants to aviation ships to confer an independent defense of commerce capability has always been 12/1. That is no accident.
There are 300+ submarines out there in the hands of rogue state actors who need killing.
12 escorts won't get the job done. 
And don't forget mine warfare.
Quote    Reply

streaky bacon       3/1/2007 11:42:34 AM
After reading the paper more closely some of it actually makes good sense! But its very short sighted and only really deals with the current problems experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan which is mainly Helicopter transports, armoured vehicles and bombers! Realistically the UK should increase its budget by atleast a £Billion a year which should help remedy most of the issues! Problem is that politicians see it more important to save tax payers money rather than Service Mens lifes afterall most of the kids who are dying are not from well off areas of society! The UK ruling class owes all to the honest hardworking men of this country who have given their lifes!
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       3/1/2007 1:38:26 PM
It would certainly castrate the British Armed forces of any capability outside of peacekeeping.

With no future artillery outside of short-barrelled, towed tube artillery, there would be no meaningful counterbattery capability or all-weather precision attack capability unless guided shells are acquired. Brigades would be inflexible jack-of-all trades and masters of none. 

With no maritime patrol aircraft and fewer ships, British territorial waters would become uncontrollable.

Phasing out GR4 as soon as possible would lead to RAF capability replacement would be all at once, destroying the British aircraft industry before the next round of procurement.

No consideration of replacement for ships, planes etc. means that no-one retains the capability to do so.

That tomahawks would confer invulnerability to the RN is hopelessly optomistic.
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       3/1/2007 5:44:17 PM
This paper has absolutely nothing to do with the MoD. It was simply a think-tank paper written by the Economic Research Council.
The goivernment is currently going through its 5 year comprehensive spending review. All sorts of rumours are flying around - the latest from the Times is that Tranche 3, FRES, and 4 naval escorts will go, but the carriers are safe. We shall see!
Quote    Reply

EssexBoy    T45 Rumour   3/9/2007 1:09:20 PM
The Independent is running a story that Saudi Arabia are interested in buying two T45s from those ordered for the RN. The Mod has six on order with an option for another two. The report is not clear whether the Saudis' ships will be the two optional hulls or if they will come from the six on order.
It's looking increasingly likely that the RN will only get six T45s and may only get four. The really hilarious thing about this is that we pulled out of the Horizon project because we wanted a larger share of the work as we were going to order far more hulls than the French and the Italians (12 v 4 & 2 I believe). More wasted time and money, and more broken promises. Plus ca change.
Quote    Reply

EssexBoy    Link   3/9/2007 1:11:49 PM
Sorry - here's the link:
Quote    Reply

EssexBoy       3/18/2007 8:22:42 AM

Good article about current RN thinking about replacing Type 22s, Type 23s and the minehunters.

The general idea is to keep the number of hulls up by accepting some less capable ships. The thinking at the moment is to replace the frigates/minehunters with three classes of ships:

1. High end Force - ASW/Land Effect. Discrete modular capabilities (MCM, helo, UAV, etc) (10 hulls)

2. Medium weight – optimised for small scale ops and securing lines of communication (8 hulls)

3. Low end - Constabulary Oceanic OPVs, Specialist MCMs, etc (8 hulls).
Seems like a reasonable trade-off to me if they can get the numbers required. I think a force mix like that would be fine for the sort of problems we're facing at the moment; my only doubt would be whether 6 (or even, god forbid, 4) T45s and 10 High end ships would be enough to do another Falklands. I bet the Argentinians will be watching this with interest.
Also, it was interesting to see that the author of the article commented on the convergence of RN and MN thinking regarding their fleets. Something FS mentioned in another thread. I don't like giving old FS credit but I think he may be on to something.
Quote    Reply

EssexBoy    Bastard link   3/18/2007 8:24:46 AM
Quote    Reply