Cameron: Carriers tomorrow, bombers today
Huge victory for slug-balancers
What you need to know about cloud backup
Prime Minister David Cameron has at last announced the Coalition government's plan for sorting out the Ministry of Defence's finances.
The RAF's deep-penetration bomber force will be preserved, and much of the Royal Navy's frigate and destroyer fleet: the cost of this is that there will be no jets able to fly from Royal Navy carriers for several years. However Mr Cameron pledged that the Navy will have one carrier always operational carrying a force of F-35C strike fighters in years to come.
The other major point in the plans is a postponement of Trident's replacement. This would normally be expected to cost some billions more over time due to increased running costs and inflated replacement costs, but Cameron expects to mitigate these factors by shaving the number of weapons carried by the subs. The successors to today's Vanguard class will be able to launch 40 nuclear warheads each rather than 48.
As had been widely expected, both the new carriers for the navy will be built, the Labour government having willingly locked itself into a binding contract that would have made it more expensive to cancel the ships than build them. However there will be no jets to operate from the first ship, HMS Queen Elizabeth. Today's Harrier jumpjets and the pocket-size Ark Royal from which they operate will be scrapped immediately. The Harrier is the UK's only dedicated battlefield support jet in RAF service, and the navy's only plane of any kind - in particular its only fleet fighter*.
According to Mr Cameron the Royal Navy will acquire catapult and arrester machinery to allow conventional tailhook planes to fly from the carriers rather than expensive jumpjets. He said that this machinery will be "fitted to the operational carrier", rather implying that there will be only one set of kit. The other ship will kept at "extended readiness" - ie in mothballs, without a crew or any aircraft.
F-35C tailhook stealth fighters will be bought in coming years in such numbers that, according to Mr Cameron, they will not only furnish the airgroup for the running carrier but will also be the main partner for the RAF's Eurofighter fleet by 2020. The UK's plans to buy more complex and expensive F-35B jumpjets will be cancelled.
Meanwhile the scrapping of the Harriers, Ark Royal, several frigates and a biggish chunk of the Army's armour has allowed the RAF to survive effectively untouched. Corporately the air service didn't like the Harriers, planes which work for the Army or the Navy. The airmen will feel some pain with the loss of the horrifically expensive Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol planes, also confirmed today, but again that was a type of aircraft which mainly helped the other services rather than bigging up the idea of Air Power.
The RAF's small fleets of transport aircraft and helicopters will of course survive and even be enlarged somewhat - they are vital to the war in Afghanistan. The brand-new Eurofighter Typhoon jet, still being delivered, is also preserved, though there will be no further UK orders.
More controversially, all these cuts will permit the RAF's force of Tornado GR4 bombers to survive. The Tornado, though it is doing battlefield support duties in Afghanistan now, is primarily a "deep strike" plane intended to penetrate enemy air defences and bomb targets far away from any friendly ground troops.
Deep strategic bombing is the reason the RAF was created, and it is central to the justification for an independent air force; the Tornado fleet is the cultural heart of today's RAF and the Junior Service will be rejoicing at its preservation. However, this jubilation may be somewhat diminished by Mr Cameron's suggestion that by 2020 the Tornado will be largely replaced by F-35C carrier-capable planes, some of them presumably navy-manned.
We'll offer detailed comment/analysis on all this once we've had a chance to chew through the accompanying documents. In summary, we here on the Reg defence desk see it as overall a huge victory for the RAF, with worrying times ahead for the Royal Navy - which must now weather at least one more election and five-yearly review before getting its single running carrier capability, without any existing community of naval aviators to carry the torch. ®
Bootnotes
*The former Sea Harrier was arguably the UK's best fighter until the introduction of the Eurofighter, but it was retired as it was of little use at sea in hot climates: losing thrust as air temperatures increased it would struggle to make a vertical deck landing still carrying heavy AMRAAM missiles.
Today's GR9 Harriers, operated by Navy and RAF squadrons, are primarily ground-attack planes. However they can carry Sidewinder missiles and therefore offer useful air cover to a fleet despite the lack of a fighter radar. (One should remember that the Harriers which did so well above the Falklands had only Sidewinders.)
COMMENTS
no, DS 1 you are wrong
"All of this is because we have too low a GDP on defense"
Er, no. You're wrong. Very wrong.
This country spends more on its armed forces in absolute and relative terms than just about anyone else. France, China, Russia and the USA spend more. We just don't get anything close to value for money and haven't done since at least WW1 or earlier.
The money we spend is mostly wasted on useless, overdue and absurdly expensive weapons designed for fighting the cold war. Which officially ended 20+ years ago but was over long before then. The MoD and service chiefs are disfunctional. Procurement has been seriously fucked up for decades. There's been no proper defence review and the latest news is no exception. It's a small step in the right direction though: cancelling the Nimrods and getting rid of 25,000 civvies in the MoD for instance. Why are we buying Typhoons and building billion-pound frigates? Why is half the army still in Germany? Who are they ever going to fight with tanks and artillery?
Even after the latest cuts the MoD's budget would be more than enough for a credible, well equipped military that met our defence and geo-political needs if it was spent wisely. But it wasn't and still won't be. Throwing more money at the MoD (I mean BAe), even if we could afford it, would be insane. Like buying crates of vintage champagne for a wino.
This nonsense and profligate waste can't go on. The new government has bottled it. The MoD is still in a hole and the government hasn't stopped digging. Yet.
BTW, what makes you think we should attack Iran when (a) we can't beat the Taliban in Afghanistan; (b) we couldn't win in Iraq either. It's high time we had armed forces that could do more than help the prime minister of the day crawl further up the US president's arse.
lets take that idea further
lets just pretend that we do have a full and proper navy, and an upgraded trident. noone would ever know that we actually dont.
sad
disclaimer: I freely admit to being a Yank, but one with deep admiration and respect for the mother country - up to a point...
I do completely understand the desire of the "new" government trying to stanch the budgetary bleeding begun by predecessors. However, I do not understand the perceived short-sightedness in this decision. Granted, senior military staff are just like politicians in that they all have their pet projects and protected turf and will fight to hell and back to protect same. However, the larger and nobler goal of protecting British soil and foreign interests for the lowest overall cost seems to have been set aside.
On one hand, it appears that home defence was the chief goal of this decision. Well and good, however what about the lads and lasses "over there"? As has been pointed out by others, including the author of the article, naval air power is the most flexible of all military aviation. Yes, it's also the most expensive overall to operate, but said flexibility is nearly always worth it.
Forces the size of the RN(aviation) and RAF would probably be better as a single force. But now we're back to stomping on the toes of military senior staff, eager to exercise their perks. As an outside observer, it seems obvious to me that folding the RAF into the RN or some other blending of the two into a unified force would be the most cost effective from SEVERAL angles. First of all, unity of platforms - fewer models of each type aircraft. Not only does that lower procurement cost, but also maintenance and training budgets as well. Second, for homeland defence, the size of land to be covered can easily be done by carrier-capable aircraft, regardless whether stationed on land or at sea.
Finally, and perhaps most important from the point of prestige, Britain has been a sea power for a long time and has seldom hesitated in the effective implementation of that power. Projecting naval power without air capability is a recipe for disaster. The RAF has a glorious, western-world-saving history as well, but budgetary reality is what it is. Instead of trying to mollify the generals and admirals, put the best gear in the hands of the boots on the ground, at sea, and in the air while doing so at the most effective cost to those footing the bill - British taxpayers. [/screed]
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
