British Defence Cuts: the official announcements...

[Polecat]

Some weeks ago I read on a British forum that there is a chance that Army funds will be transferred to the ISTAR fleet, as they are in fact the major users of thus capability. Even during current operations these aircraft are alledgedly manned by both RAF and Army operators. So maybe there is still some hope for the relatively cheap-to-operate Shadows.

[Le Addeur noir]

The British government seems th think there will be no future wars.Iran,North Korea and China may well have other ideas.

I really don't see your point. Iran was never an aggressor the last 40 years or so. I guess you mean: some governments have other ideas, like waging war against Iran. Why should the UK preserve a huge force because of China and North Korea? Is this part of their defence strategy? So in your view a country has to spend Billions of Dollars, just because there are a few random countries in the world with a big army and with different government structures? In that case: why not point to India as a thread, or Japan, or Egypt, and spend your entire BPM to defence, because you never know for sure?

Iran not an aggressor?.

Why would I think that?

1 Development of nuclear weapons

2 Threat to wipe Israel off the map

3 funding of terrorism

4 Their leader is as mad as Hitler

I rest my case.

Apart from western Europe,the world is ramping up military spending.The inbalance will be felt in the future.

A country that cuts the 2% it spends on defence,whilst involved in a war that is severely overstretching the capacity of the current forces and eliminating significant parts of the current capacity is risking trouble.

North Korea-a country that is a major threat to world peace and has a declared nuclear weapons programme whilst large numbers of her population are starving is a threat that needs countering.The country is run by a madman.

No adequate military capacity?,your oil supplies are at risk,want to pay $10/litre for gas?.Same goes for other imports.An island nation abrogating her maritime patrol capacity is just plain insane.

There has to be a sensible level of defence expenditure in a democratic country to defend that democracy from those who would seek to undermine it if the perceived deterrence is undermined.

The lessons of the 1930s and 1940s need to be remembered.

[Coati]

Iran not an aggressor?.

Why would I think that?

Maybe because they never invaded another country. Aggressors tend to attack other countries. So far, they have been attacked by others, not the other way around. That might be a reason to develop a nuclear arsenal, because that is a way to deter an enemy. Despite their retorics and arms program, maybe they are scared of being attacked.

1 Development of nuclear weapons
Most of the enemies of Iran have nuclear weapons.

2 Threat to wipe Israel off the map
Iran has been threaded many times to be invaded, and actually is invaded in the 1980s

3 funding of terrorism
But covert action is allowed when Iran is the target?

4th point an opinion and a political statement

Not that I am a supporter of Iran, but my point is the truth is sometimes a bit different when seen from a different perspective. It is not black-white. or evil-good.

Anyway, the UK is no world power anymore and has to face a new reality and adopt a new strategy. Despite their cuts they still have a huge army, airfoce and navy and a big nuclear arsenal. Just repeating the comparison of the 30 and 40 is not an argument, because the world is changing, the power of countries are changing, the interests are changing.

To try to hang on to the status quo is not realistic and also unnecessary. The UK does not have the power, nor financial resources or realistic reasons to have a huge defence.

[Le Addeur noir]

Iran not an aggressor?.

Why would I think that?

Maybe because they never invaded another country. Aggressors tend to attack other countries. So far, they have been attacked by others, not the other way around. That might be a reason to develop a nuclear arsenal, because that is a way to deter an enemy. Despite their retorics and arms program, maybe they are scared of being attacked.

1 Development of nuclear weapons
Most of the enemies of Iran have nuclear weapons.

2 Threat to wipe Israel off the map
Iran has been threaded many times to be invaded, and actually is invaded in the 1980s

3 funding of terrorism
But covert action is allowed when Iran is the target?

4th point an opinion and a political statement

Not that I am a supporter of Iran, but my point is the truth is sometimes a bit different when seen from a different perspective. It is not black-white. or evil-good.

Anyway, the UK is no world power anymore and has to face a new reality and adopt a new strategy. Despite their cuts they still have a huge army, airfoce and navy and a big nuclear arsenal. Just repeating the comparison of the 30 and 40 is not an argument, because the world is changing, the power of countries are changing, the interests are changing.

To try to hang on to the status quo is not realistic and also unnecessary. The UK does not have the power, nor financial resources or realistic reasons to have a huge defence.

The UK having a huge air force?,the end result of these cuts will see the UK having less than 10 fast jet squadrons of some 10 airplanes each.The small print of this review makes clear the Tornado will be replaced entirely by the Typhoon. Hardly huge.

Military spending in Britain is at it's lowest since before the Second World War and declining.There will likely be further cuts over and above those announced in this latest review.There are those in influential positions in the opposition Labour Party who would like to all but eliminate defence spending in Britain.

I Britain and other European powers keep cutting defence spending,why should the Americans defend European interests?,which they do at this time at great cost to thenselves.

In answer to your point defending Iran for calling for Israel to be wiped off the map,when in the 1980s did Israel actually invade Iran?,I must have missed that one.

On the 4th point,a leader who holds power as a result of a blatantly rigged election is a clear danger to western interests.Of course,Iran is the darling of the left wing in Europe,with their socialist/communist hidden agenda.

[Coati]

In answer to your point defending Iran for calling for Israel to be wiped off the map,when in the 1980s did Israel actually invade Iran?,I must have missed that one.

I did not refer to Israel but to Iraq, which did invade Iran in the 80s.

[ehusmann]

In answer to your point defending Iran for calling for Israel to be wiped off the map,when in the 1980s did Israel actually invade Iran?,I must have missed that one.

On the 4th point,a leader who holds power as a result of a blatantly rigged election is a clear danger to western interests.Of course,Iran is the darling of the left wing in Europe,with their socialist/communist hidden agenda.

It was Iraq that invaded Iran, not Israel. Which Coati didn't state either.

The perception many people have of Iran however, is largely determined by the media these days. Some of it probably right, a lot most likely wrong. Iran has never been a threat to their neighbours since the collapse of the Persian empire. Their leader is a nutcase, for sure, but his harsh language is most likely to keep his own people off the streets. He might, or might not be trying to develop a nuclear bomb. But like all countries in possesion of a nuclear weapon, using it means suicide. Why can we not accept that if he really wants to have this weapon, it is meant as an extra card in negotiations with other countries. The real threat in the region is not Iran, but Israel. Israel has proven several times it will take action and will attack if they feel they should.

In any case, the same discussion holds true for the British defence as for the Dutch defence. What do you want to be capable of doing? If you think that Iran, North Korea and China are the real threats of the world these days, do you also want to say that the UK should be able to withstand an attack by these countries? Or maybe even be able to invade these countries? If so, how much money are you willing to spend? To be honest, I don't think that is a viable option anymore.

Erwin

[Le Addeur noir]

In answer to your point defending Iran for calling for Israel to be wiped off the map,when in the 1980s did Israel actually invade Iran?,I must have missed that one.

On the 4th point,a leader who holds power as a result of a blatantly rigged election is a clear danger to western interests.Of course,Iran is the darling of the left wing in Europe,with their socialist/communist hidden agenda.

It was Iraq that invaded Iran, not Israel. Which Coati didn't state either.

The perception many people have of Iran however, is largely determined by the media these days. Some of it probably right, a lot most likely wrong. Iran has never been a threat to their neighbours since the collapse of the Persian empire. Their leader is a nutcase, for sure, but his harsh language is most likely to keep his own people off the streets. He might, or might not be trying to develop a nuclear bomb. But like all countries in possesion of a nuclear weapon, using it means suicide. Why can we not accept that if he really wants to have this weapon, it is meant as an extra card in negotiations with other countries. The real threat in the region is not Iran, but Israel. Israel has proven several times it will take action and will attack if they feel they should.

In any case, the same discussion holds true for the British defence as for the Dutch defence. What do you want to be capable of doing? If you think that Iran, North Korea and China are the real threats of the world these days, do you also want to say that the UK should be able to withstand an attack by these countries? Or maybe even be able to invade these countries? If so, how much money are you willing to spend? To be honest, I don't think that is a viable option anymore.

Erwin

I could go arguing this for a long while.

The short answer is in a time of rising tension and most countries other than western Europe increasing military(note,not defence) spending,this sends out the message to potential adversaries that western Europe is at best unwilling to defend it's economic interests.Sooner or later these interests will come under threat.Do you want your supply of(relatively) cheap oil and food to suddenly cost more due to supply routes being curtailed or cut off?.No maritime patrol airplanes?.Never mind,Russia may take advantage of this in the next decade to impose her will on who moves in the Atlantic.

The same can be said of the Indian Ocean with no western protection and a more assertive China.

The pitifully small defence budgets of western European countries cannot withstand further cuts ad infinitum.The cuts of the last decade have damaged capacity far too much already.

You could argue the correct level of defence expenditure for a long while,but cutting the defence budget below 1.5-2% of a country's GDP is (IMHO)taking chances.

How much does China cut it's defence budget?,the answer is that it does not,and in fact increases the amount spent each year by some 15%.

Attacks in Israel,the only functioning democracy in the Middle East-a country that has fought for her very existence against bellicose Arab dictatorships,a totalitarian Soviet Union and the many left wing communist supporters in the western media and elsewhere since 1948,whilst Iran's actions are defended seems unjustified at best.

Several Arab countries have call for air strikes on Iran by the US to deny Iran the use of nuclear weapons,so fear of Iran is not restricted to the right-wing western media.

In short,a world where countries like Iran,North Korea,possibly China and later on possibly Russia and Venezuela threating economic trade routes will be a dangerous and expensive place to live.The threat is not in the short term,but come the end of this decade,things could look very different.Then it may well be too late to reverse the damage done to the defence of western nations.

The latest defence cuts in Britain are estimated to amount to savings of some 1 billion Pounds over 5 years,whilst at the same time three times that amount has been allocated to increasing foreign aid.Stupid at best.

Too much reliance is placed on the Americans to defend western interests.This cannot be guaranteed in the future as the United States has massive budget deficits and there are calls for defence cuts in America,too.

[Stratofreighter]

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =EUR&s=AIR

RAF Dropping to 6 Fast-Jet Units

Export Deals Could Further Cut Typhoon Force

By ANDREW CHUTER
Published: 11 Dec 2010 11:45

LONDON - Britain may halve its fast-jet fleet by 2020 or so, according to the commanding officer of the Royal Air Force's No. 1 Group.


A British Royal Air Force Typhoon F2 flies in close formation with a RAF Tornado F3. (Courtesy of U.K. Ministry of Defence)

"We are heading for five Typhoon squadrons and one JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] squadron," said Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell, who commands the RAF's air combat group.

"It will be a six-squadron world; that's what's on the books."

That could mean 107 Typhoons, plus about 40 F-35C JSFs that support a large operational squadron of 20 to 25 crews, Bagwell said.

Typhoon numbers could be clipped even further if Britain and Oman seal a deal to send the Persian Gulf nation about a squadron's worth of aircraft.

The planes could be diverted from an existing RAF order; the question is whether they will then later be replaced, he said.

In 1990, the RAF had 33 fast-jet squadrons;

in 2003, 17.

Today, the number stands at 12: seven Tornado, three Typhoon and two Harrier squadrons, plus the offensive firepower of a growing fleet of Reaper UAVs.

By April, Britain will be down to eight fast-jet squadrons, thanks to the retirement of the Harriers and the shelving of two Tornado units.

The Tornado force has already been eroded by a covert 2009 order from the previous Labour administration to cut the number of crews in each squadron.

But that number is expected to return to its previous level next year as squadrons are eliminated and crews shift around.

Those cuts, and others, were ordered by an October decision to ax defense spending over the next four years as part of a wider government plan to reduce public borrowing levels.

The cuts bit deep into RAF capabilities; other reductions hit battlefield surveillance, maritime reconnaissance, helicopter transport and other capabilities.

"Six squadrons is the low point for the U.K.'s fast jet fleet," one analyst said.

"You can expect that to recover a little as the Ministry of Defence bolsters its force of Joint Strike Fighters beyond the current level mandated in the new strategic defense and security review."

Bagwell was less sanguine.

He called the first JSF squadron a "start point" and said more may come, but for the moment, "I expect a single squadron in 2020 and that's it."

Other senior RAF officers have said they aim eventually to operate around 100 F-35Cs, which will split their time operating from land bases and from the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy.

Bagwell said the fast-jet cuts were challenging but manageable so long as the RAF is not tasked to do much more than its current deployments:

Tornados to the NATO effort in Afghanistan, and Typhoons to quick reaction alert (QRA) forces in Britain and the Falkland Islands.

"Am I happy to be down at that number [eight squadrons] next April?

No, it worries the hell out of me because it's a small combat air force," he said.

"I can just about do Op Herrick [Afghanistan] and the QRAs. Can I do other things? Yes, but it is at risk.

"Actually, I am more worried about what other people think I can do tomorrow," he said.

"The whole thing about procurement and posture is as much about long-term future deterrence and keeping the enemy on the back foot as it is about physically fighting.

The deterrence and coercive effect of air power has somehow got lost in the noise."

Typhoon Questions

Bagwell said the RAF would likely axe its 55 Tranche 1 Typhoons by mid-decade because it would cost too much to bring them up to the required multirole standards offered by Tranche 2 and Tranche 3.

That would mean the RAF Typhoon fleet would top out at 107 machines.

But the Typhoon fleet could shrink even further, Bagwell said.

The "great unknown in the plans is the awful lot of potential export customers," he said.

The proposed deal with Oman is in the final stages of negotiation; discussions are now underway about where those dozen or so aircraft might come from.

The RAF's Typhoon force could fall further if the planes are diverted from the Air Force's order and are not replaced.

Difficulties in Britain's 72-plane sale to Saudi Arabia are creating more uncertainty.

The first 24 are being diverted from the RAF's Tranche 2 order, and the service is to get more Tranche 3 aircraft instead.

The other 48 are to be assembled in Saudi Arabia as part of an effort to build up local industry.

But industry sources said the plan has run into difficulties that raise questions about how Britain will fill the Saudi order.

Bagwell said options could include taking additional aircraft from the RAF production run and replacing them later.

"Should we get the buybacks out of Saudi Arabia and Oman as planned, we will be back to the number of Typhoons I need," he said.

"At the moment, if I don't get the [Omani] buyback and this is under discussion ... it could take me down to 95 aircraft."

He said any changes to RAF deliveries would affect the service's ability to train crews.

A spokesman for BAE Systems, which is helping to build the aircraft, said he couldn't comment on Saudi issues.

Bagwell also revealed:

■ The 2011 planning round could change the timing of the upgrade of Typhoon jets to a full multirole aircraft.
Dubbed the Future Capabilities Program 2, it will allow the jets to carry Storm Shadow, Brimstone and other weapons.

■ The decision to switch the planned purchase of short-takeoff, vertical-landing F-35Bs to the conventional carrier C version will give the Air Force a true deep-penetration capability.

■ The Sentinel R1 surveillance capability, to be axed by the government after the Afghanistan war, could be replaced through programs like the Scavenger UAV and new active electronically scanned array radars on Typhoon and JSF.

■ The 2011 planning round may speed up creation of the final two Typhoon squadrons, now slated for 2015, by as much as a year.

Bagwell told reporters that the date on which the RAF hits six squadrons would depend in part on Ministry of Defence decisions about the drawdown of the Tornado strike aircraft as Typhoons arrive.

"We still need to hold on to a portion of the Tornado force, and it will be a very important decision for the next defense review [expected in 2015] as to how the crossover is achieved between Typhoon and Tornado," he said.

"My gut instinct is that we will need at least two or three Tornado squadrons at the 2017 point, keeping the squadron numbers at the six to eight figure."

The Tornado fleet is currently scheduled to retire in 2021.

The government recently announced a reduction in the number of Tornados required to sustain ongoing operations, known as force elements, from 40 to 18 by 2015.

Elizabeth Quintana, head of air power and technology at the Royal United Services Institute, said she didn't think air power suffered worse in the cuts than many other sectors.

"The benefit is that unlike the Army [spared the worst of the cuts due to the war in Afghanistan], the Air Force now knows what its configuration is going to look like in the 2017-2020 timeframe," she said.

"Where aircraft numbers are going in the future and what impact unmanned combat air vehicles might have is too early to say.
F-35 and Typhoon give you more capable platforms but with fewer numbers."

She noted that synthetic training will reduce the number of aircraft kept off the front lines.