This from the Guardian...
It has also emerged that the RAF is to scrap more than 50 Eurofighter/Typhoon jets which became operational only three years ago at a cost of more than £4.5bn because it cannot afford to update them.Wow.
They just put into service and now are going to have to scrap them?
Tough times in the UK.
This is unbelievable. I know that every country has problems and that defense budgets are cut all over the place, but what happens in UK is too much. What the hell are those guys doing? They spent so much time, money and lives to get back in the seat as a major power, they have expeditionary forces all over the world, and now what?
ReplyDeletehey Alex,
ReplyDeletehappy new year...oh and yeah this is unbelievable. its really sad.
the UK, at least militarily, is rapidly becoming 3rd rate. i mean quite seriously, they will only be able to do internal security at the rate they're going.
as a comparison, the USMC alone will have more firepower than the entire British military at this rate. that might not be a fair comparison but it gets worse.
i haven't done the numbers but i tend to believe that the Netherlands will soon match their capabilities.
France is definitely stronger...Germany is too. and i'd think that the Turks have a stronger force as well as Italy, Spain...heck Romania too.
the UK is in a hurt locker.
Happy new year too Sol. Unfortunately, Romania is in a worse state by far. We don't have air defense capabilities anymore, our vaunted Mig-21 Lancer has finally collapsed. It's over, the plane can't simply fly anymore. Too many accidents. And we can't even afford second hand F-16 so we have taken into consideration even upgrading the IAR-99 Hawk, which is basically a trainer/light attack plane, in order to have some aerial police in place. But, after all, we don't have the needs of the brits.
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe Falklands will save them once again from collapsing their own military strenght. This is bad news for the US too, the British have been your no. 1 military allies for the past 2 decades. I don't think they'll be there for you next time if this goes on.
they've been an ally but also one of our biggest critics in Europe too.
ReplyDeleteAustralia has been hardcore, so has Romania, so has the Netherlands, so has Italy and even France...Germany has been vocal against the wars but sent troops...Japan sent some to Iraq and even S. Korea.
we have friends that might not like it but they stood up...
Alex, when you consider all of the amphibious vessels and naval aviation operated by the USN for the USMC I think it'd be a fair call to say that the USMC was already more powerful (conventionally) than the UK military.
ReplyDeleteSol, the UK government has consistently been the US's no.1 ally. The British media and an element of public opinion may criticise the US (arguably correctly), but no one could argue that the UK govt. has been anything other than a stalwart supporter of US FP.
The SDSR sadly in no way represents a strategic analysis of Britains defence and security position. All of its judgements are based solely on the basis of cutting costs yet maintaining UK deployment in Afghanistan - for the sake of everything else. The very question of whether deployment in Afghanistan is actually in the UK's strategic interest wasn't even questioned.
That said, does the UK really need two/three types of supersonic airsuperiority/fighter aircraft? (Tornado/Eurofighter/F-35) I'd argue not. Furthermore with the incremental roll-out of the Eurofighter it is only really the Tranche 2, Block 15 Eurofighters onwards that are worth having. Cutting down on Eurofighters is probably the most sensible way to cut costs.
What is troubling as you point out is the sheer wastage the SDSR has caused, another example is the Sentinel ISR aircraft which have only just come into service (at great expense) but are now to be axed. Likewise the Nimrod Mr4 had completed developement, again at enormous expense, but is being dropped.
The fact remains though that Britain is and always has been a maritime nation, with at present over 90% of UK import/export by value (greater by volume) coming from shipping. Meanwhile, the one thing the SDSR has really eroded is the UK's maritime capabilities.
with all due respect, maybe we Aussies should take a very close look at these surplus planes. Yes it would be a big change in direction but it would potentially give us an air superiority fighter to complement the F-18 or F-35 if it actually turns out in the end.
ReplyDeleteThey aren't upgrading these planes because they are Tranche 1 aircraft and their systems are too different from the later aircraft to make it an economically viable proposition to upgrade them. They are more likely to acquire additional airframes for a cheaper overall cost than upgrade these earlier aircraft.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Australia goes, we're getting a new fleet of much more advanced Super Hornets, for a cheaper rate than these second hand Tiffies would cost us. Can't see much attraction in them for us. Even the RAF recognises these are outdated. Why the hell would we want them?
One of those RFA Bay Class LPD's OTOH...
Solomon,
ReplyDeleteAlthough the UK is in dire financial trouble and is trying to cut expenditure in every field especialy the military,we still manage to field the second largest contingent of troops in Afghanistan.
We have also suffered the second largest number of casualties,but it seems that this is not enough for you.
As for being a critic of the USA surely this is what democracy is all about,if allies cannot criticise each other then who can.
You are the one person who is always going on about communism and how dangerous it is,one of the things they ban is any dissent and that is exactly what you are advocating in your post.
I really do hope that the next time you call upon your allies to back you up you can rely on Romania,Australia,the Netherlands,France and Germany as it is only because of intense pressure from the UK withing Nato that these countrys troops are in Afghanistan in any number.
Australia being the exception.
So now we are 'third rate' all I can say is that having known quite a few American citizens,your views are contrary to others I have heard.
You obviously have very little time for the UK and that is fine but if you think that Europe will back you in future without the support of the UK you are sadly mistaken,you obviously know little of the machinations of European politics.
You should be more worried about who will back you in Asia once your personal 'bogeyman' China start to flex its muscles,you plainly have nightmares about this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI always thought that banning views that were in opposition to your own was communist censorship.
ReplyDeletePiss poor website if you can't cope with criticism.
Sol, i was always under the impression that except your Eastern European allies, all eager to live behind their communist past, the UK was your biggest supporter in Europe when all the others took shots at you foreign policy. It's true that the UK mood changed with their current leadership but isn't this related to the fact that the US itself change its position toward the Brits?
ReplyDeleteMy comments appear to have been deleted...
ReplyDeleteTough time across the Western hemisphere.
ReplyDeleteEg. VFA122 of USN was merged with VFA125 late last year to conserve cost; UK, Sweden and Germany cap their fighter fleet size. Turkey is a noticeable exception.
"Australia has been hardcore, so has Romania, so has the Netherlands, so has Italy and even France...Germany has been vocal against the wars but sent troops...Japan sent some to Iraq and even S. Korea."
ReplyDeleteOh fuck right off Sol, we followed the US into Iraq and Afghanistan and you have the bollocks to stand up and suggest France and Germany have been better allies to you? Remember when french fries became freedom fries because the French were almost enemy number one?
Yeh they sent (grudgingly) troops to Afghanistan, but we have a bigger contribution than both put together and had troops in Iraq. We made a lot of enemies doing this, and we took a lot of shit from those countries in Europe you mentioned for doing it.
We might not always be your bitch but we haven't been a bad ally by any account.
Oh and the article doesn't mention exactly when the Typhoons are going to be withdrawn, the plan was always to withdraw these particular aircraft by 2015 I believe, and be replaced with new more powerful aircraft that can act in both the A2A and strike role (T3). Whether that is still the case isn't clear.
I know things are in a bad way at the moment with UK defence but we still have a lot going for us, despite a few capability gaps appearing. Please don't write us off entirely just yet.
Frankly, the only factor that keeps the size of US armed forces up is the intrinsically and extrinsically generated insecurity at home and abroad. That said, whether the US will be able to keep PRC, DPRK, Iran or other security threats in check with military might alone is highly doubtful. Yet, the US military expenditure: >$1 trillion every two years.
ReplyDeleteI think its unfair to draw too many negative conclusions from this particular decision. The Tranche 1 birds are essentially useless for anything beyond the most basic flying and air defense. Why take the trouble to keep them when times are hard?.
ReplyDeleteAlso Sol you are being unnecessarily tough on the Brits. Yes they might be a bit unsteady now, but remember the political situation there is much more fluid with the coalition govt. The wars were always pretty unpopular at ground level, the current govt is simply being cautious with its support. Also you could directly link the drastic cuts they are making with their long involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan which has sapped their resources.
Instead of calling them out as unsteady allies, now is the time to stand in solidarity with them and show some gratitude. If Falklands goes up again for example, US might do well to provide material support if not military assistance this time, just as a good will gesture for Iraq (where the UK had absolutely no obligation to come). We owe them that much for what they have taken on in our name.
It would appear that the remarks I made in my DELETED post have been vindicated by subsequent contributors.
ReplyDeleteYour views on the UK seem to be universally condemned,perhaps in future you will exercise a more democratic policy and publish opinions that clash with your own surely this is what debate is about.
Sound leadership strives to build consensus and likely as well as unlikely alliance; Sarah Palin, on the other hand, offers verbal and idealogical confrontation and divide at tough time like this.
ReplyDeleteGiven that national security/anti-terrorism has become more of a global issue than ever before, the United States cannot and SHOULD NOT fight the rest of the world alone.
AuusieDigger: Fair call, based on the timeline mentioned in the article I was assuming (incorrectly) that these could have been Tranche3 planes.
ReplyDeletehey anonymous.
ReplyDeletei don't delete comments. i might cuss you. call you names...but i don't delete comments.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletesee jackass....your last post i deleted.
ReplyDeleteidiot.
No worries Paulicus. The problem for the UK is they are committed to buying 232 Typhoon aircraft from the Eurofighter Consortium, but they don't really have the cash for that. The UK Government has decided to cap the Typhoon force at 160 aircraft (about 7 fighter squadrons, plus Operational Conversion units, test and development unit etc).
ReplyDeleteSo the RAF (quite wisely in reality) is advising the UK Government to dump the Tranche 1 aircraft they have which aren't really providing much capability and using the money that was originally planned to help complete their required purchase of Eurofighters.
That way the UK can meet it's commitment of purchasing 232 aircraft, but won't actually operate that many and all the RAF versions will be Tranche 2 (which are more easily upgradeable) or Tranche 3 versions (the current planned "ultimate" version).
UK may be coming back to the pack a bit, but it is still a powerful military nation and it's air combat capability will be strong.
They are committed to maintaining 7x operational Typhoon squadrons. 7x GR4 Tornado strike squadrons. They are retaining their AEW&C (7x E-3D) and Air Refuelling (14x A330 MRTT's) plans, they are acquiring 3x Joint Rivet aircraft and maintain a host of other airborne ISR capabilities.
They might not be as strong as they once were in terms of force comparisons with some other Countries, but they are far from weak.
They are maintaining a strong navy and have retained a conventional carrier capability despite the cuts, which will be equipped with a 5th Gen VLO fighter and AEW&C capability.
They are maintaining a strong land force with excellent expeditionary capabilities and a strong high intensity combat capability.
I'd love for Australia to have an equivalent capability but we are a LONG way behind the UK in terms of conventional military capability and that does not even factor in their obvious Nuke capability.
Cheers,
AD
Sol, on the whole 'tone' debate, I would say there is a fine line between telling a friend an uncomfortable truth and being disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteI have a pretty hard nosed approach to the special relationship (history show periods of ups and downs) and we should always realise that there has to be benefit for all parties.
On the RAF, yes it has and continues to be hammered, as the other services have and will be in the next few years. The worst has yet to come by the way.
On Typhoon, yes we have committed to 232 aircraft but lets not forget the 70 odd sold to Saudi Arabia out of our allocation and possibly another handful to Oman. Tranche 1 are perfect;y capable of being used in air defence roles so dreams of Tranche 3 being a) any other than T2 in capability terms and b)being funded by getting rid of T1's are somewhat optimistic
@AD, I agree that the RAF will still be a powerful force but just to correct you on a couple of points
We are not committed to maintaining 7 operational Typhoon squadrons, it might be only 5 on current pans
You are way off on 7 squadrons of Tornado GR4, Tornado is hanging by a thread. As soon as it is no longer needed in Afghanistan and Typhoon can carry Storm Shadow, its history
We have 7 E3D AWACS but there has only ever been funding for 6 and we don't maintain all of those 6 at operational readiness
On the tankers, it is a PFI availability contract for service, the number of aircraft is irrelevant because the RAF will not own a single one
The other ISTAR capabilities you mention (on top of the Rivet Joint / Air Seeker) include Nimrod, Shadow and Sentinel. All three of which have either been cancelled or will be withdrawn after Afghanistan
Also, lets not forget the withdrawl of the Hercules fleet to be replaced with 22 A400
As you say, weakened, but still capable but I think a lot of people fail to realise just how deep the recent and planned cuts are
Think Defence.
ReplyDeleteRespectfully. My blog, my rules. If you come here (not you but anyone) spoiling for a fight then a fight you'll have.
You bring a knife, I'll bring a gun.
You bring a gun, I'll bring a tank.
I have been taught (and I learned the lesson well) to escalate my force more rapidly than my opponent so that I stay ahead of the conflict curve.
Back to the Royal Air Force.
My standard for the UK's military and its might is the Falklands Conflict.
Can the UK deploy a force large enough to dislodge a nation that decided to seize those islands.
20 years ago? Without a doubt.
10 years ago? Maybe.
Today? I'd lay my money on the opposition.
Its not a matter of hating the UK...its an observation of that nations current military capabilities.
I fear that they've eroded.
These budget cuts (in my opinion) went far too deep and will affect relationships.
Already (my opinion again) it appears that militarily, the UK is the little brother of France.
I don't know how this looks on the continent but from my perspective, the UK has been weakened.
Oh and one last thing.
You can blame the war in Afghanistan for this predicament, but if the UK pulled out tomorrow then the cuts would be even deeper than they already are.
My prediction. Next up for cancellation will be the Tornado's.
The Royal Air Force will operate only Typhoons for a number of years and it will be sold as a sensible money saving measure.
The problem that I see is that the wear and tear on the remaining airplanes will be considerable.
If they are somehow spared heavy use then pilot proficiency will suffer---classic catch 22.
'I have been taught (and I learned the lesson well) to escalate my force more rapidly than my opponent so that I stay ahead of the conflict curve.'
ReplyDeleteHow very un-clauswitzian of you.
Sol, naturally the RAF will get rid of the Tornado's next... that is the official government position already. They're only there for Afghan.
Also re: the falklands. Firstly while yes its certainly true that the SDSR somewhat cripples the RN's expeditionary capability for the next 10 years, it's also very much worth pointing out that the Argentinian armed forces have seen effectively no investment, and in the meantime wholescale cuts, since the falkland campaign.
Certainly Britains ability to launch a full scale re-invasion has been eroded - but does Argentina even possess the capability to invade them in the first place? With or without the increase in the flakland islands defence force sine the conflict I'd argue argentina now lacks the military capability to mount an invasion.
This obviously also discounts the crucial question of whether Argentina actually WANTS to reinvade the Falklands - which again is something I think most would argue that they lack the will to do.
Thinkdefence, you're quite right to point out the ISTAR capability gap - I did in my early (missing) post. It's very worrying, and also perhaps the single most wastful element of the SDSR cuts.
As I had earlier stated the loss of tranche 1 aircraft is neither here nor there - their capability beyond training is fairly limited.
With the F-35 also planned for purchase the question will be does Britain really need two different types of fighter/strike aircraft? I'd argue not and there is a genuine question over which is best for Britain.
If the UK wasn't in Afghan then yes there would still be cuts - considerable cuts. But these would fall on the Army, traditionally of low strategic importance to Britain, rather than the RN which has always been of the utmost strategic importance. Sadly in the SDSR the question of whether or not the Afghan deployment is actually in Britains interest hasn't been asked.
I'd also note with respect to French vs UK capabilities that whilst France is a considerable military power that there is a significant gulf in the levels of training and professionalism in UK and French forces.
ReplyDeleteA further observation is that much of French military capability is beset by technical problems which they have been unable to resolve. The Charles de Gaulle most notably has performed exceptionally poorly. When it eventually does leave port it inevitably has to return shortly thereafter due to technical problems - on its most recent sortie to the Indian Ocean it was out of port for only 1 day before it had to return. Whilst the deployment did eventually go ahead I think Sol that you are running the risk of looking purely are the forest and not enough at the trees. Many observers made this mistake prior to the 1st Gulf War in respect to Iraqi vs Coalition capabilities.