"British airpower mooted cutbacks" Topic

Royal Air Force is looking at some severe cuts:

- Cut F-35 fleet from 138 planned to 48 (no surprise really)

- Reduce Eurofighter fleet from 136 to 112.

- Retire 8 ISTAR aircraft (Sentinel R1 and Islander R1). Sentinel retirement was already known.

- Retire all 14 remaining C-130Js.

- Reduce helicopter fleet by 45 helicopters. I assume this will be retirement of 23 1970s vintage Pumas as well as some of the older Chinooks.

link

Impact on fighter fleet is massive – UK down to 160 aircraft. Furthermore with only 48 F-35s there will be insufficient aircraft to maintain anything bar a token capability on the 2 carriers.

160 aircraft is still sizeable for Europe but it's less than France (225), Germany (225), Greece (230), Italy (185) or Turkey (280) and not that far off Spain (155 – scheduled to shrink though).

Still more than those Poles who keep whinging about Russian threat who have a mere 96 fighter aircraft and will reduce down to 80 by 2025!

source: scramble.nl

Amazing. What is the money being spent on?

From past reviews I guess those are possible options rather than A and B and C and D, etc. Also there are possible changes to the RN and Army. Again the expectation is that these are alternatives: not all will happen.

"Where has the money gone?" Despite recent defence spending increases there is still a shortfall in the capital budget: partly project cost overruns, partly exchange rate. The army is in a real mess after 20 years of neglecting its heavy equipment whilst doing counter-insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan. It needs new tanks, IFVs, utility APCs, artillery and attack helicopters. The RAF is spending a fortune on F35, P8, UAVs, missiles, and (soon) Tempest. The navy has Type 26, 31 and now 32 frigates to pay for, Astute SSNs and RFA solid support ships.

But the big ticket item for the whole of UK defence is the new Dreadnought SSBN programme and new warheads for Trident. And they want to fund an increased national space effort, more unmanned and much more cyber. With the weak pound, and weak economy post Brexit and Covid there probably isn't going to be a big surge in defence spending to cover it all so something has to give.

My guess is that the army (and things that support them, like Puma and transport aircraft) will actually bear the brunt of any cuts. They still don't even have a coherent plan of where they want to be in terms of organisation and capability and I just don't think there will be any political enthusiasm to put many boots on the ground any time soon.

The reduction in Eurofighter Typhoon numbers was always expected – as the article explains these are the T1 aircraft. IIRC, these were kept longer than planned for UK air defence / policing to free up the T2 and 3 aircraft whilst F35 force was built up.

It isn't exactly true that the ISTAR aircraft aren't being replaced. The old and new situations don't translate type for type but the UK has spent and is spending a lot on ISTAR: P8, RC-135, UAVs, E-7, Crowsnest and satellites. Sentinel has already had its out of service date pushed back a couple of times.

The helicopter number might include the Army's Wildcat utility helicopters as well as Puma. We've only just bought Wildcat (a mistake, IMHO) but the Pumas are long past any sensible retirement date. Apart from the Chinooks, the rest of UK helicopter procurement has been a mess, I think. We have paid too much for too few aircraft of too many types.

The C130Js (in service since 1999 and very heavily used) are supposed to be replaced by A400M. The 2010 review set the retirement date at 2022 then that was extended in 2015 to 2030. I've seen arguments for keeping a few for special forces and jobs where the C17 and A400M are too big.

I don't think many people still expected the UK to buy 138 F35s. I hope the actual number will be more than 48 – something sufficient for 3 front line squadrons then a trickle of attrition replacements. However, stopping at 48 F35B is what a loud minority of RAF voices have been calling for, in favour of anything that can't operate of a carrier and doesn't have to be shared with the RN: Typhoon Tranche 3, F35A or Tempest all being suggested.

"Amazing. What is the money being spent on?"- Dan

Social welfare programs

YouTube link

The armed forces of the world continue to shrink, mainly in the area of being able to project power. Future wars will probably be short affairs as there simply aren't the numbers or sufficient replacements to carry on a conflict for more than 30 days. Outside of the U.S., I think we're going to see most countries settling for being able to project power regionally, but not globally.

'Dragon Gunner:

"Amazing. What is the money being spent on?"- Dan

Social welfare programs'

Not sure I follow your analysis there. Is that where you think the extra GBP 16.5 bn being allocated to defence in this parliament will be spent or that the 2020 baseline budget of GBP 46.2 bn is really spent on social welfare?

link

Take a look at your over all budget, subtract what you spend on social welfare programs then apply what you desire to defense spending…

How many single mothers on assistance equal one helicopter?

But the OP article wasn't about why doesn't the UK spend enough on defence. It was about why, when the UK has just increased defence spending fairly substantially, is there talk of cuts.

It doesn't matter what the OP article was about, so spending has been increased at the same time cuts have been made. Are all the items being cut replaced? If the answer is no then the rest of the UK budget should be examined. The UK spends its money as it sees fit, if it places social welfare programs above defense it is a choice.

The equivalent is spending money on cigarettes and beer then not being able to buy a car to get to work.

I will repeat my question how many single mothers on assistance in the UK equal one helicopter?

You sound like a politician. The OP (edit: sorry – not the OP, the reply to the OP and the question you replied to) asks a question about where does the increased defence spend go and you claim the real question is about the evils of welfare spending v total defence spend.

Your question is impossible to answer properly: which single mother and which helicopter? How many children? Has the mother ever worked, maybe she is working but not earning much so gets supplementary benefits. Health conditions? UK benefits aren't very generous compared to other European countries.

The UK is buying 50 AH-64E for $3 USDbn so about £43.00 GBPm each. Say total lifetime costs is as much again over 20 years = £4.30 GBPm per year so quite a few single parents I would guess.

Where is it being spent? It goes into the pockets of the Tories and their cronies. Where else?

"You sound like a politician"

I was thinking the exact same thing about you and still am! If number crunching has to may variables I will make it easy for you, what does the UK spend on all of its social welfare programs combined? I believe you understand exactly where I was going with this topic…

"asks a question about where does the increased defence spend go and you claim the real question is about the evils of welfare spending v total defence spend."

You sound like a politician playing the shell game. We have increased spending while ignoring cuts made and loss of capability. Your attempt to control the narrative is not going to work…

"UK benefits aren't very generous compared to other European countries."

Perhaps that is why most of the EU cannot make its NATO obligations?

Yes I think I understand exactly where you are going. Another isolationist red MAGA hatter with no knowledge of the rest of the world or even understanding of the majority in the US, who thinks everybody else is a libtard communist and gets their world view from the right wing echo chamber.

The UK has been meeting its NATO 2% defence obligations – about 1% less share of GDP than the US but still. It is increasing that defence spend by more than inflation and a lot more than GDP. Personally, I'd wish it was by more but there we are. The US is facing the same cold choices of letting legacy capabilities go to free up money for new defence priorities and to cover overspend on existing projects. .

"Another isolationist red MAGA hatter with no knowledge of the rest of the world"

I did not vote for Trump and I have never worn a MAGA hat! ( I will ignore the rest of what you said)

Explain to me why American taxpayers should enable Europe to not meet its NATO obligations while Europe supplies benefits for its people US citizens do not receive?

Great the UK is meeting its NATO obligations I applaud. However increasing spending while slashing forces and capability is a shell game. To "increase" spending sacrifices were made!

Midlander65,

The A400M is by all accounts a very flawed aircraft that never met many of its operational requirements. Indeed the French and Germans have had to buy C-130Js because A400Ms can't refuel helicopters, have problems supporting large paratrooper drops or certain types of drops and are incapable of the type of performance needed for special operations.

Apart from the Chinooks, the rest of UK helicopter procurement has been a mess

Even the Chinook procurement was a mess:

E.g. failed special operations HC Mk 3 version that was delivered completely unserviceable and had to be converted to base Mk 2/2a standard.

E.g. Procurement of newbuild Mk6 which was slashed from 24 to 14 aircraft.

Also note most of the 60 Chinooks still in service are also ancient dating back to 1980s. They were rebuilt twice but are still anywhere up to 40 years old.

I don't think many people still expected the UK to buy 138 F35s. I hope the actual number will be more than 48 – something sufficient for 3 front line squadrons then a trickle of attrition replacements.

48 is apparently sufficient for two operational squadrons each with about 10-12 aircraft:

617 Sqn RAF – operational squadron
809 Sqn FAA – operational squadron
17 Sqn – Test and Evaluation unit (literally 2-3 aircraft)
207 Sqn – Operational Conversion Unit

Note of the 48 F-35s, 4 are early model test and evaluation versions that are uneconomical to convert to combat standard.

IMO all should be transferred to the RN FAA and carriage of the program passed to that service. As it stands the two carriers are a waste of money as they will never be able to deploy the maximum sized airwing.

To be honest the F-35 buy ad to be cut as obtaining larger quantities would jeopardise the planned BAe Tempest.

Typhoon Tranche 3, F35A or Tempest all being suggested.

With constant cutbacks to RAF size the Tempest is losing any potential economies of scale. As things if Tempest replaces Typhoon on a 1:1 basis, it's going to be a measly 112 aircraft for RAF (and 96 for Italy).

The UK has been meeting its NATO 2% defence obligations

The 2% is misleading as it doesn't take into account how it's spent. Some countries in NATO have ramped up their defence spend by including veteran welfare programs, military pensions or certain civil defence items (eg aerial firefighting units operated by air forces).

The UK has a couple of big money pit projects that soak up huge amounts of money – the two carriers (which will now never operate at full capability) and the SSBN replacement project.

The way the vast defence bureaucracies, and convoluted procurement and maintenance processes work one could literally spend trillions on defence yet not be able to deploy a single infantry battalion or fighter squadron.

Midlander stay in the conversation defend your position if you can…

If the US doesn't feel that other members of NATO aren't pulling their weight then why don't they withdraw from the treaty?

As it happens the UK is fulfilling its obligations budget wise, but as ever is spending its budget on things that relate to how the British armed forces are supposed to operate, not in response to things that may or may not happen in the future but which the UK cannot influence.

Even if the UK chose to spend 3% or even 10% of our GDP on defence we could not hope to compete with any of the world superpowers or emergent superpowers on a numbers basis. Our value these days is in training other nations troops (including those in the US), intelligence and cyberwarfare.

A departure from NATO might be a good idea Newarch then the NATO countries would actually have to seriously think about their own defense and could be real allies in a future conflict not liabilities.

You go to war with the military you have not the one you wish you had. I believe many NATO countries rely on the USA far to much…

Nice strawman argument no one suggested the UK needs to compete with a superpower!

I actually think NATO needs to be dismantled and be replaced by two new yet connected entities:

1. A united European defence force or at least a united command structure and procurement policies.

2. A defence treaty between US and EU but one not based on automatic defence.

Our value these days is in training other nations troops (including those in the US), intelligence and cyberwarfare.

None of that equates to boots on the ground or ability to engage kinetically.

The problem with NATO and even it's Russian defence mission as I see it is as follows:

1. NATO eastern flank is barely defended due to eastern European countries gutting their capabilities to parade ground token forces (even Poland is essentially doing this).

2. Even if Eastern Europe gets its act into gear, Western Europe has insufficient forces to act as reserves.

Most NATO countries don't maintain even a divisions worth of troops or a fighter wing's worth combat aircraft.

Most would struggles to deploy more than a battalion and many wouldn't even be able to do that.

3. The whole defence is based on US forces except US no longer maintains massive conventional forces in Europe so it's all reliant on shipping troops and materiel across the Atlantic from the US.

Even if the Russians don't deploy a single asset to the Atlantic, US shipping/transport capabilities are not what they used to be either and it would take time to deploy large forces to Europe.

So disbanding NATO makes sense if it's replaced by something else within Europe.

@Dragon Gunner

I'm glad you accept that Russia and China aren't a threat then.

I never said that I just want allies that are not tumble weeds blowing away in a stiff breeze then scream for help.

Newarch feel free to respond to Arealdeadone's post he makes some compelling statements…