RAF to become smallest since 1914...

[MKSheppard]

Link

The RAF will shrink to its smallest size since the First World War, under unprecedented cuts being proposed at the Ministry of Defence.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Published: 10:22PM BST 06 Aug 2010

In the most significant changes to Britain’s defences since the post-Suez review of 1957, ministers and officials plan to scrap large parts of the Armed Forces.

The Services will lose up to 16,000 personnel, hundreds of tanks, scores of fighter jets and half a dozen ships, under detailed proposals passed to The Daily Telegraph.

But the RAF will bear the brunt of the planned cuts. The Air Force will lose 7,000 airmen – almost one sixth of its total staff – and 295 aircraft. The cuts will leave the Force with fewer than 200 fighter planes for the first time since 1914. In addition, the Navy will lose two submarines, three amphibious ships and more than 100 senior officers, along with 2,000 sailors and marines.

The Army faces a 40 per cent cut to its fleet of 9,700 armoured vehicles and the loss of a 5,000-strong brigade of troops.

The Telegraph has also learnt that the “black hole” in MoD finances, caused by orders which have been made but cannot be paid for, is approaching £72  billion over the next decade – double the amount previously suggested.

While the Strategic Defence and Security Review is yet to be finalised, officials have drawn up a series of likely options to meet cuts of 10 to 20 per cent demanded by the Treasury.

By the end of this month the Defence Strategy Group, comprising ministers and military chiefs, will be presented with a number of recommendations that they will refine and pass to the National Security Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, in September.

In October, after agreement with the Treasury, an announcement will be made in Parliament on precisely what cuts the Forces face as part of the comprehensive spending review of Whitehall budgets.

If implemented, the cuts will mean that Britain will almost certainly depart the world stage as a major military power and become what military chiefs call a “medium-scale player”.

The proposed cuts – which are certain to face a critical reception from the public – are being considered without resolving the question of who pays for the Trident replacement. The MoD hopes that once voters realise the scale of the cuts to the Armed Forces, George Osborne, the Chancellor, may spare some parts of the military. The plans will lead to the RAF losing its status as the fifth biggest air force in the world.

The entire force of 120 GR4 Tornado fighter-bombers looks destined for the scrap heap to save £7.5 billion over the next five years. The Tornado was supposed to be in service until 2025, but with a major overhaul due in the next five years costing £10 million for each aircraft, it is now under threat.

The cut will mean job losses as RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Marham totalling almost 5,000 personnel.

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. The entire fleet of 36 Hercules transport aircraft, the workhorse in Iraq and Afghanistan, is to be phased out and replaced by an order of 22 new A400M planes.

The £3.6 billion project for nine Nimrod MR4 reconnaissance aircraft is also vulnerable, along with a number of other surveillance planes.

The proposals include a swathe of cuts to the Army’s armoured regiments with the loss of Challenger 2 tanks, AS90 guns and Warrior armoured vehicles.

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. It is understood that 7 Armoured Brigade or 20 Armoured Brigade, both based in Germany, are the most vulnerable.

Infantry battalions will be increased from about 600 troops to 750 as a lesson from Afghanistan has been the loss of combat effectiveness through leave and casualties, according to the plans.

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.

A senior Whitehall source said: “These are not Tory cuts, these are Labour cuts as a result of their irresponsible overspending. However, a lot of this comes down to how much political appetite there is to do this.”

An MoD spokesman said: “The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded.”

[Chris OFarrell]

Yeah, it does suck.

OTOH when you have a bankrupt country, often you have to make the hard choices and suck it up.
Unless you're the US, in which case just keep on spending...

[Big Orange]

We're covering this topic over at Spacebattles.

This huge MoD cutback is the United Kingdom ceasing to be a global military power that it was from the end of the War of the Spanish Succession until the early phase of the Cold War, Tony Blair was an idiot in assuming we are pocket sized USA that could punch above our own weight, an assumption that has led to disastrous, fruitless results (just today a young surgeon has been found dead).

[MKSheppard]

I read the SB link. My brain hurt. Don't do that again.

FBH's assertation "I don't see this proposal going anywhere." would be hilariously funny if it wasn't so stupid and ill-informed.

History HAS shown us that the British can be this retarded in regards to their military.

I've always long held that while CVF is too far ahead to cancel completely, CVF's escorts, airwing, and operational status will be severely compromised in the future by British politicians.

[MKSheppard]

I mean shit, they are saving $7.5 billion from retiring the tornadoes early. All good and so. So why not take half of that money saved; $3.75 billion and keep the EF-2000 force at 160 planes ($1 billion); and buy 40~ more EF-2000s with the remaining $2.75 billion to increase EF-2000 levels to 200 planes?

You still reduce the military budget for the RAF by $3.6 billion, but increase capabilities of the RAF as they now have newer planes overall.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I text my brother who's at RAF Chicksands now about this. I find it hilarious he finally gets in as the final intake for a long time due to these cuts.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Also, why not save that cash for Tranche 2 capable planes when they become available? More better equipped planes may be preferable over just more of the bog standard EFA now.

[[R_H]]

I do hope they'll at least be selling off the stuff they're cutting. Maybe Canada can get some functioning submarines this time around.

Oooh, and Chally 2s for Colombia!

[Thanas]

I do hope they'll at least be selling off the stuff they're cutting. Maybe Canada can get some functioning submarines this time around.

Oooh, and Chally 2s for Colombia!

I really doubt they will make much money on that. Consider that a lot of nations are cutting forces (Germany too) and you have a buyer's market.

[[R_H]]

I do hope they'll at least be selling off the stuff they're cutting. Maybe Canada can get some functioning submarines this time around.

Oooh, and Chally 2s for Colombia!

I really doubt they will make much money on that. Consider that a lot of nations are cutting forces (Germany too) and you have a buyer's market.

Germany is getting rid of more Leo2s - are they still being sold for around 500K Euros? Why not just put them into storage?

Perhaps one of the Gulf States will snap (some of) them up.

[Thanas]

The new ones are put into storage IIRC but the A4s are supposed to be sold.

[[R_H]]

The new ones are put into storage IIRC but the A4s are supposed to be sold.

Interesting. Plus, there's the A7 conversion, that uses A6s though?

Who else would still be interested in more Leo2s? Singapore? Canada?

[Thanas]

Who knows. But the plans call either for the loss of a complete brigade or for a massive closure of the distributed bases in favor of a few centers.

I think they just do not want to pay for the conversion/storage space or for the cost of scrapping them.

[Slacker]

Wouldn't surprise me if some of the Eastern Europe NATO members pick up some of this stuff, take the opportunity to jettison the remainder of their old WARPAC era hardware. Not the nuclear subs, mind you, but the tanks and such.

[Aaron]

I do hope they'll at least be selling off the stuff they're cutting. Maybe Canada can get some functioning submarines this time around.

Oooh, and Chally 2s for Colombia!

I really doubt that we have the budget for SSN's. We can't even get our AOR replacements and icebreakers finalized.

Interesting. Plus, there's the A7 conversion, that uses A6s though?

Who else would still be interested in more Leo2s? Singapore? Canada?

It would be a good opportunity to grab some for spares and training.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Wouldn't surprise me if some of the Eastern Europe NATO members pick up some of this stuff, take the opportunity to jettison the remainder of their old WARPAC era hardware. Not the nuclear subs, mind you, but the tanks and such.

Most of them don't have too much extra room in their budgets either... Since none of them, as far as I know, have no British AFVs or SP guns currently in service, it would still require a non-trivial investment to create the support and training systems for new types of vehicles. I guess that the AS90 and Warriors have a reasonable chance of getting picked up by someone, but the Chally 2 is a different matter. It can't even fire standard 120 mm smoothbore ammo. Most countries will probably prefer the Leo 2A4s from Germany, if they are looking for MBTs at all.

[Vympel]

Isn't the RN considering dumping F-35 for F/A-18E/F, too?

[Sea Skimmer]

Isn't the RN considering dumping F-35 for F/A-18E/F, too?

Rumors exist that the British may be looked at Boeings Block II Hornet with additional structural changes for stealth and expanded fuel tanks, not a mere F/A-18E. Some concepts for that plane are actually tailless.

However said rumors are also are wildly speculated to just be British pressure to get the US to ratify the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty which was been stuck in the US senate for the last several years. What that treaty would do basically is remove the need for specific weapons import or export licenses between the two countries when the sales are conducted by companies who make it on the approved list. This of course matters far more to the UK then the US, as it would let UK based companies bid on the far greater US military requirements on an equal footing with US based ones. That’s not so important for high end items, waiting a year for an export license for a giant pile of aircraft doesn’t matter much, but its crippling to sales of bread and butter stuff like razor wire, gas mask canisters and small arms ammo. Sales like that could start helping UK companies as soon as the treaty was ratified in the US.

What the truth is I don’t know, but I would point out of hand that we still don’t physically know that electromagnetic launch will ever work, those EM shielding issues still exist, and without that CVF could never launch a Hornet. So it’s rather unlikely that he RN would shift to the Hornet at this point and gamble on a risk of needing to shift back later. As of yet the aircraft requirements for CVF have still not been formalized and the CTOL and CTVOL options are still being developed in parallel.

[K. A. Pital]

Um... what is "retarded" about that? What are the threats to Britain? *thinking* I can't find any around, except perhaps, hmm, Argentine. I don't see any nations which could start proxy wars with Britain within the next 50 years or so (do you?), I don't see any bordering nations that pose a threat or a potential threat.

I don't see a reason for much of the First World military machine to exist at all, much as some members here do not see a reason, for example, for Russia's Army to exist at the strength levels it has now. I don't see a reason for the British military to operate in Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere in the world at all, other than botched neo-imperialism riddled with delusions of grandeur and "helping Uncle Sam" in America's spoilt-kid rampages in the Middle East or elsewhere in the future.

To be fair, I'd even say I welcome the reduction, because Russia is massively reducing arms, both nuclear and conventional. Good that Europe is following heed. Disarmament, peace and love!

This huge MoD cutback is the United Kingdom ceasing to be a global military power that it was from the end of the War of the Spanish Succession until the early phase of the Cold War, Tony Blair was an idiot in assuming we are pocket sized USA that could punch above our own weight, an assumption that has led to disastrous, fruitless results

Britain doesn't need to be a global military power anyway. It's a question of need, I guess.

So why no celebration of the peaceful initiative and the abandonment of costly military toys? You know, "conversion", healthify the civilian economy, no to militarism All the good stuff. And I'm only part joking here.

[[R_H]]

Most of them don't have too much extra room in their budgets either... Since none of them, as far as I know, have no British AFVs or SP guns currently in service, it would still require a non-trivial investment to create the support and training systems for new types of vehicles. I guess that the AS90 and Warriors have a reasonable chance of getting picked up by someone, but the Chally 2 is a different matter. It can't even fire standard 120 mm smoothbore ammo. Most countries will probably prefer the Leo 2A4s from Germany, if they are looking for MBTs at all.

Then again, the Chally was supposed to get a smoothbore, but I highly doubt they'll bother upgrading the ones they're getting rid of.

[Shroom Man 777]

So why no celebration of the peaceful initiative and the abandonment of costly military toys? You know, "conversion", healthify the civilian economy, no to militarism All the good stuff. And I'm only part joking here.

Because in light of economic hardships, the end of the Cold War, the lack of need for a super-huge military, et al, people are still unwilling to part with their stupid military toys and bitch and moan about the perceived emasculation of their penile compensatory mechanisms?

The people who whine most about this militaristic stuff are the same ones who couldn't give a crap about other important social issues that affect living breathing people, instead of military doohickeys.

[Srelex]

Send it all to the scrapheap, I say. At last, people are realizing that you can't eat tanks, planes, BLARRGH-3 missiles and other such stupid shit that billions of dollars that could be spent on education, scientific development, and things that will actually help us in the long term are wasted away on. Apart from Kalasnikov-wielding mobs in far-off shitholes, against whom was this really to be used against?

[Starglider]

The three basic arguments for keeping military strength in times of (relative) peace are;
1) The world could start getting much more dangerous at any time. A few ultra-nationalist regimes come to power, a couple of civil wars start, Israel finally gets involved in another major war. Modern militaries take a long, long time to scale back up.
2) Subsidy to strategic industries; to some extent this is part of (1), in that if you lose armament manufacturing capability it's very hard to get back, but there's also the stimulation of foreign arms sales, commercial spin offs of the R&D and the direct manufacturing jobs creation.
3) A powerful military, particularly a powerful expeditionary force, gives you more political influence.

(2) is not a very good argument, in that usually these goals can be achieved more efficiently by other spending. Obviously some people object to (3) on principle out of dislike for realpolitik etc but these people should be ignored. The main problem is that it depends very much on context, and on the appearance of military power rather than necessarily practical capabilites. The cost/benefit is dubious for the UK right now.

(1) is the only good argument. We do live in a dangerous world facing resource shortages and proliferation of military technologies that are only going to exacerbate the numerous existing flashpoints and sources of tension. The UK is critically reliant on international trade and this won't change any time soon. UK firms are at the forefront of offshore resource exploitation and this will need defending, e.g. the Falklands vs Argentina. Europe as a whole hasn't gotten its defence together, and while Russia might appear to be relatively unthreatening right now, it still has a massive nuclear arsenal (actively being modernised, unlike the American one) and plenty of crazy nationalists who want to re-conquer all the former USSR countries.

As such I support getting rid of obsolete assets such as the Tornadoes, as the likelihood of actually needing them before their service life expires is low. However we absolutely should maintain core capabilities and keep modernising equipment, i.e. protect and even slightly expand the Typhoon buy. Otherwise if we suddenly find ourselves in need of a decent air force in 2020 or 2030 we will be screwed. This is such a trivial part of the budget compared to handouts, bailouts, health care, worthless civil service buercracy and surveillence-state boondoggles that it is simply not worth taking the risk.

billions of dollars that could be spent on education

The UK has already spent massive more on education during the Labour government that at any previous time. Education standards have arguably gone down as a result, although grade inflation is so severe that we're relying on employer surveys (about suitability of new graduates) for that assessment. Education doesn't need more funding, it needs to be stripped of idiotic Labour ideology pretending that all students have exactly equal abilities, interests and needs, and that any problem can be solved with new buildings and more paperwork.

[Starglider]

I don't see a reason for much of the First World military machine to exist at all, much as some members here do not see a reason, for example, for Russia's Army to exist at the strength levels it has now.

You can STFU. Russia has a bit more than twice the population of the UK, and operates about 1000 fighters and 150 bombers. You were just whining in the Mig-31 thread about how 100 airframes isn't enough and they should all be upgraded ASAP. Yet apparently the UK having a mere 160 fighters is way too much, and it should not even consider upgrading its older fighters?

[MKSheppard]

(2) is not a very good argument, in that usually these goals can be achieved more efficiently by other spending.

Well that's the thing.

In a lot of fields, the civilian world is the primary driver -- e.g. battery tech is driven by the consumer electronics industry and automobile industry now; with the military getting the nice spinoffs.

But for aerospace -- only the military has the money and funding to achieve some of these goals -- since there exists no commercial market for supersonic flight, and no company is willing to fund a new SST.