tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post8729753044663984559..comments2024-02-29T11:45:01.870+01:00Comments on UK Armed Forces Commentary: The evolving budget situation: capabilities in the air - UPDATEGabrielehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-19975820444009226092014-02-02T21:42:14.279+01:002014-02-02T21:42:14.279+01:00The AH9A is assumed not to be part of the 148 heli...The AH9A is assumed not to be part of the 148 helicopters, since it will go out of service in 2018 if the plan hasn't changed. <br /><br />As for the numbers of the fleets i mention (24 Puma, 60 Chinook and so along) do include the whole fleets. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-76732673888926179942014-02-02T20:06:12.902+01:002014-02-02T20:06:12.902+01:00Your blogs make great reading, is the Lynx AH-9A n...Your blogs make great reading, is the Lynx AH-9A not included in the total helicopters number?. Also do the figures for each helicopter type include those used for training?, many thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-37786830777398522242014-01-29T14:48:24.403+01:002014-01-29T14:48:24.403+01:00I am sorry to say that on this Blog and others peo...I am sorry to say that on this Blog and others people can go on and on about what type of Helicopter Fleet we should have or why did we do this etc. The simple fact is WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH HELICOPTERS full stop. I find truly depressing the fact we have learnt none of the lessons of Afganistan when we lost a lot of young men either driving or escorting resupply convoys which should have been flown by Helicopter. <br />That we had to use weapons not designed for the purpose and lost men to provide what should have been done by close air support. <br />The fact is with the numbers above it doesn't matter if it's the Marines screaming in off a LHD or Airmobile Paratroops being airlifted in on C17's or The British Army tied down for the long haul in failed states we can not lift, cover and supply more than 1'000 troops at most. The idea as per SDR that we can send 5,000 pointy ended troops anywhere is a fiction. <br />We have got lucky in that the only oponents we might have to act against Argintina are in worse state than we are. If they were anywhere near 1982 levels modernised we would be dead in the water. In Afghan we got lucky because we have relied on US Marine Helicopters since the US realised we were getting our a***s handed to us on a plate, whilst our brave soldiers tried to cope. We are sending brave men in to situations where they will fight to their last breath, bravely and with extreme courage whilst lilly white politicians tell us all is well in the world.<br />In my view untill the senior levels of all branches of the military go to Westminster and make a public statement on TV that they are not prepared to send men to die because Politicians write cheques they can not possibly deliver on. Either Politicians 1. Put the money in to get the correct levels of equipment or 2. We stop doing and acting like we can do anything and admitt to the USA we need their help or 3. We create a joint European force to do our bit or 4. We give up on engaging or protecting our interests in the world and become Sweden/Ireland.<br />My own solution would be to take the cost of Succesor out of the MOD budget which would be left at the level it is and the country as a whole can then decide if we can afford Nucleur Weapons.<br />Because at the moment we are heading for an almighty fall, where we get 5,000 troops commited, something happens and the US can't supply Helicopters, Air Refueling, AEW Coverage, Anti Radar Attacks, Ground Attack from A10's and we come home with our tails between our legs and a lot of dead soldiers. <br />The image that you can do something is 9 times out of 10 more important than doing it, but on that tenth time you better step up otherwise that's the end of the game. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-76049117267993933832014-01-29T06:26:12.187+01:002014-01-29T06:26:12.187+01:00Re your point 1, Gabby ha pointed out that SF Comm...Re your point 1, Gabby ha pointed out that SF Command (or whatever it's called) are arguing for C130J retention, to replace the -Ks that did SF support. Will be interesting to see if we end up with a small fleet of -Js retained, but I doubt it. <br /><br />ADBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-77429829642578681602014-01-28T12:54:22.872+01:002014-01-28T12:54:22.872+01:00All,
Understand the history of the transport flee...All,<br /><br />Understand the history of the transport fleet and also its changing nature over time. To stress however, it has never been made explicitly clear what the MOD's plans are for the introduction of A400M and the taking out of service of C-130J. Assuming the likely fleet of 22 A400M, 9 C-17 and 14 KA330. That translates into a frontline fleet of 16 A400M, 8 C-17 and 12 KA330, suggesting several things to me - <br />1. A very significant gap in spec ops support<br />2. Company / Batallion level paratroop support largely deleted (which is actually a capability I would be more sanguine about losing, but needs to be acknowledged)<br />3. Again raises the question of Falkland Islands support and how / if it should be discharged using the much reduced transport fleet above<br /><br />NigelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-8323182699063777072014-01-28T12:10:14.524+01:002014-01-28T12:10:14.524+01:00ADB,
Correct, the future UK fixed-wing lift fleet...ADB,<br /><br />Correct, the future UK fixed-wing lift fleet is essentially set at 22 A400Ms split over two squadrons as a direct replacement for the current fleet of 24 C-130J's and one squadron of C-17 (8-9 airframes depending on whether a 9th is ordered) plus whatever can be extracted from Voyager (14 airframes split amongst two squadrons) when it is not tanking. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-87345826516838408992014-01-26T18:15:24.932+01:002014-01-26T18:15:24.932+01:00Nige,
The replacement for the C-130J is the A400M...Nige,<br /><br />The replacement for the C-130J is the A400M. Originally, we had about 50 C-130Ks. 25 were traded in for -Js in about 1999, with the remaining -Ks expected to be replaced later by the A400M. With delays in the A400 and the acquisition of C-17s, the -Ks were eventually run down, leaving the 25 -Js to be replaced by the A400M.<br /><br />ADBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-80688373829752929132014-01-24T21:13:25.840+01:002014-01-24T21:13:25.840+01:00Spending hundreds of millions on Puma to keep it a...Spending hundreds of millions on Puma to keep it around for a decade (probably without replacement) and hundreds more on messing around trying to convert RAF Merlin's when keeping them where they were and buying an off the shelf naval helicopter would have been much cheaper/easier is highly indicative of the confused, often nonsensical and very costly state MOD procurement is in. Even if things have improved since 2010 it's clearly a slow process with a lot of legacy programs that need fixing. <br /><br />A reduction in Apaches (even if it becomes a block III fleet), the confused mess that is Scavenger and the whole UCAV situation, the (as you stated) appalling state of maritime heavy lift, the worrying lapses in things like SEAD, the unforgivable laxity with Crowsnest are just some of the other examples.<br /><br />And don't even get me started on FRES! I can't even make out what it's supposed to deliver anymore, even with your sound analysis Gab! Challengernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-56698056589294415022014-01-24T14:22:27.113+01:002014-01-24T14:22:27.113+01:00Gabriele - thanks. The gap filling for HC3 makes ...Gabriele - thanks. The gap filling for HC3 makes sense. On the battlefield support helo more deployable than Chinook - I can see that, although in reality over the last 10 years the default position very often appears to be to turn to Chinook, notwithstanding distances involved (eg Cyprus self deployment). It would be interesting to see if this trend would continue.<br />As you say both the amphibious support and the ALARM show the clear pattern of behaviour at the MOD - ie identify gaps and then do nothing to fill them. If I was to extrapolate the trend I would completely agree that Puma will be retired without replacement (it would be nice if Benson could be closed as well, but I wonder if there is room at Odiham), as will BAE146 and125s (although probably not Northolt given the RAF is always talking about how "strategic" said airbase is). I had always hoped some sort of C-130J replacement would be in the offing, but I suspect that will simply disappear as well.<br />Sorry - pesimism running away with me again....<br />Nigel Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-5057558045917491682014-01-24T13:46:02.841+01:002014-01-24T13:46:02.841+01:00Gabriele,
Just trying to be clear in what I was s...Gabriele,<br /><br />Just trying to be clear in what I was saying, you seemed to have me confused for a bit- that's all. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-39433391497897800962014-01-24T13:30:35.292+01:002014-01-24T13:30:35.292+01:00Look, have it as you please. I think you are wrong...Look, have it as you please. I think you are wrong, but you can think what you want. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-20948943265362868962014-01-24T13:27:58.077+01:002014-01-24T13:27:58.077+01:00I'm not mixing up Scavenger and FCAS; Reaper i...I'm not mixing up Scavenger and FCAS; Reaper is Scavenger- it's all but a done deal. FCAS is the 2030 Typhoon replacement- as the MoD stated in the written evidence submission to the Defence select committee. With the Reaper as Scavenger it becomes possible to put its replacement in the same pot as the unmanned portion of FCAS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-9371486958372868122014-01-24T13:12:35.134+01:002014-01-24T13:12:35.134+01:00Puma is "needed" to ensure that the RAF ...Puma is "needed" to ensure that the RAF maintains a battlefield support helicopter smaller and more deployable that the Chinook. It is also meant to keep up availability of battlefield support helicopters while the Merlin HC3 availability drops low as the helicopters go into factory for life extension and navalisation. <br /><br />Of course, this does not really close the horrible gap in availability of amphibious support helicopters (down to just eleven Sea Kings and destined to build up on to Merlin quite slowly, with 2022 coming before all Merlin are actually navalised) but that there was trouble in this area is known at least since 2008, when a 87% shortfall in amphibious support helicopter capability was exposed by official reports, including by NAO. Yet, nothing has been done in all these years to ease the problem everyone knew was coming. <br /><br />As for what takes Puma's place when it goes, too early to say. Judging from the general trend, it might very well simply vanish, and the helicopters fleet shrink even further as a consequence. <br /><br />On ALARM, i've written about it many times in the past, ever since it became evident that the RAF would lose its SEAD capability in 2013. Again, nothing is being done about it. There's vague promises of some sort of electronic war capability (Bright Adder) inserted in AESA radars that (part of the) Typhoons might get (sometime in the future), but effectively it is another voice in the long list of what the british armed forces no longer can do. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-77085418513860323052014-01-24T13:03:50.812+01:002014-01-24T13:03:50.812+01:00Gabriele,
On two other points raised in the artic...Gabriele,<br /><br />On two other points raised in the article - <br /><br />1. On Puma, I have to admit I am still struggling to understand what this fleet is "for", but leaving that aside, given the out of service date is only 10 years away, is there any hint as to whether this will be scrapped without replacement or will there be additional buys of Merlin/Chinook? I hope to god they aren't thinking about of introducing yet another new type - as we all know that would be horrendously expensive....<br />2. On ALARM - I actually find this the most scary point in the whole article. SEAD is a fundamental part of warfighting and to go from what was a capability well in advance of HARM when purchased to nothing/rely on the US raises serious questions concerning just where the RAF's thinking actually is.... More fundamentally, is the excellent point you raise around the whole "ethos" behind UK political "thinking" (if you can call it that). It appears it is more acceptable politically / to sell to the British public that we simply delete capabilities completely than it would be to sell the idea of developing a joint capability with allies. That is obviously pervese in nature, but I guess is the logical conclusion of both euroscepticism combined with a more general disengagement from the world.... (apologies, this last comment will no doubt inflame passions amongst some, but I reality does tend to hurt....)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-14984016380546607712014-01-24T12:45:41.909+01:002014-01-24T12:45:41.909+01:00Thanks Gabriele - all of which makes sense, assumi...Thanks Gabriele - all of which makes sense, assuming the money can be found of course!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-63782162510905000622014-01-24T12:01:35.268+01:002014-01-24T12:01:35.268+01:00I still think you are running way too fast on mixi...I still think you are running way too fast on mixing up Scavenger and FCAS that much. I'd be very careful in making guesses, at this stage. <br /><br />As for modifying Reaper, there are actually modifications that could be made to the airframes as well, namely there's a COTS offer for longer wings, strenghtened landing gear and upgraded control surfaces resulting in a massive increase in mission endurance. <br /><br />RAF officers also said they were looking at podded sensors and payloads, with the aim of developing a standard pod, validate its integration, and then use it for all sorts of sensors and payloads, to cut down on integration costs. <br /><br />Brimstone is already being integrated with US help, and Paveway IV might be an obvious solution for the future, although it isn't considered a requirement as of now (in Afghanistan they use the GBU-12, but in almost all situations the weapon that gets used is actually the Hellfire). <br /><br />In the US they have also trialed Reaper with the DB-110 reconnaissance sensor that in the RAF is known as RAPTOR and usually seen hanging under the Tornado's belly. <br />Electronic Warfare systems have already been demonstrated. <br /><br />Italian and dutch Reapers are to get a maritime wide area search mode for the Lynx radar. And there has already been a demonstration of integration of a Seaspray radar on a modified Reaper airframe. So, there's plenty of possibilities for expanding the capabilities and usefulness of Reaper, many of which are, to a degree or another, already proven. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-56605016439451366042014-01-24T11:13:14.245+01:002014-01-24T11:13:14.245+01:00Gabriele,
Precisely, which means that the Reaper/...Gabriele,<br /><br />Precisely, which means that the Reaper/Scavenger replacement becomes a medium-long term requirement in the same time-frame as FCAS. The RAF ISTAR guys responsible for Reaper have made very blunt statements about the need for future platforms to be survivable which results in a stealthy ISR/Strike UCAV and it makes perfect sense to consider this as part of FCAS.<br /><br />Anon,<br /><br />I suspect there will be few modifications to the aircraft itself, mostly to the ground support for deploy-ability and data dissemination. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-5434418212670757122014-01-24T10:00:01.994+01:002014-01-24T10:00:01.994+01:00When we talk of "modifying" Reaper, do w...When we talk of "modifying" Reaper, do we have a feel for what that means in practice? I am assuming that it would be actual along the lines of integration of UK weapons (Paveway 4 and Brimestone) and sensors (?) rather than any actual changes to the airframe etc?<br /><br />NigelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-42793413289175824532014-01-24T01:06:38.602+01:002014-01-24T01:06:38.602+01:00Scavenger is the Reaper follow-on. It could have b...Scavenger is the Reaper follow-on. It could have been a wholly new UAV, or a modified Reaper. Keeping Reaper and modifying it was always one of the possible approaches, even when TELEMOS was in full swing. TELEMOS collapsed for lack of french funding, and Reaper now seems set to be the medium/long term base for the Scavenger system. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-51784930640655637322014-01-24T00:59:55.447+01:002014-01-24T00:59:55.447+01:00Gabriele,
Scavenger has become Reaper- they are n...Gabriele,<br /><br />Scavenger has become Reaper- they are now the same thing. What seems to have happened is that the Reaper/Scavenger replacement has been put in the FCAS study phase. All the comments made in public speak to that. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-9358541549860136992014-01-24T00:20:31.179+01:002014-01-24T00:20:31.179+01:00At the stage, it is a bit excessive to mix up FCAS...At the stage, it is a bit excessive to mix up FCAS and Scavenger. I don't think we are anywhere near joining the two requirements in the same thing. Timeframes don't match, roles don't match, and FCAS is still very much up in the air anyway. I wouldn't even characterize it as "Typhoon replacement", as that is also excessive, as of today. Manned aircrafts will be sacrificed in favor of unmanned platforms for budget reasons, sure, but it is early to say that FCAS will be the intended replacement of Typhoon. <br /><br />On the Reaper "future", the UK's position isn't very coherent. France also wants a nationalized, "future" Reaper, but the UK has turned down the offer to work together on its development. Frankly, as of now, it kind of looks like a giant mess. I'm glad the current Reaper is staying, because the question mark over what will actually come after it is a rather huge one. Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-2756760981098467512014-01-23T23:34:22.575+01:002014-01-23T23:34:22.575+01:00Gabriel,
Excellent as ever.
An interesting obse...Gabriel,<br /><br />Excellent as ever. <br /><br />An interesting observation regarding Reaper's long term future based on evidence given to the Parliamentary select committee late last year (link below). It effectively confirms (with the usual caveats) what we have known for a while, that the Anglo-French MALE is dead and that Reaper will be around for a while though there is a curious comment about sole sourcing a MOTS "future variant of Reaper".<br /><br />It also all but confirms what I have suspected for a while, that the UK is looking for Reaper to be replaced by a survivable platform- with strike capability integrated this suddenly becomes viable as part of the Typhoon replacement. In short, what seems to have happened is that the Reaper replacement requirement and the Typhoon replacement requirement have been lumped together under FCAS with discussions ongoing as to the exact split between stealthy ISR/Strike UCAV and F-35A- which would explain Hammond's remarks about 80/20 versus 20/80 between manned and unmanned that he made in May last year.<br /><br />http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmdfence/writev/772/rpa01.pdf <br /><br />http://news.sky.com/story/1086720/philip-hammond-unsure-about-f-35-order Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com