MoD does everything right for once in Xmas shocker

They'll still have to wait...

2 years to take delivery...so not much help now (jam tomorrow)

Right-ish, but years too late.

But the first batch won't be delivered until 2013 - and British forces are due to start pulling out in 2010 or 2011, so how many troops will still be there when the first Chinooks arrive. And the rest won't arrive for years after that - so how exactly will this improve the situation in Helmand over the next couple of years? Why do I think of stable doors and bolting horses in this context?

And let's face it - the elephant in the room of defence spending is a certain WMD called Trident - axe that and every squadie in Helmand can have his own private Chinook (with en-suite bathroom and gold taps)!

I like to think...

...Lewis is currently skipping round, swinging his arms in glee whistling Jingle Bells. Ahhhh, bless!

Scots Wha Hae

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Trident only up in Scotland for convenience and to keep a big fat and dangerous target out of harm's way in a safely controllable zone away from major population centres? Whether that's true or not (but especially if it is) as far as I'm concerned if Scotland ever does become independent then the English will be more than welcome to take it back.

I'm no chip-on-the-shoulder Scottish Nationalist, quite frankly I couldn't give a toss whether we're in the union or not, Scotland and indeed the rest of the UK has far far bigger problems (mostly of the social kind) than some jingoistic loudmouths on both sides of the border would have us believe.

Besides, if you're going to get into the whole pointless "what Scotland puts in vs what it gets out" argument, perhaps you might want to consider the frankly immense tradition of service put in to the british armed forces by Scots over the centuries. I know you didn't bring the subject up, but next time Lewis just ignore the SNP twats and stick to what you do best.

Other than that, great article, and like you it gives me a warm glow to hear that the blood-sucking arms biz and their DSC mouthpiece are spitting teeth.

Finally, to the inevitable army of brainless gloating Jock-bashing commentards: shut up, you're embarrassing yourself.

I've got an even better cost-saving measure

All the UK forces resign and sign up for the US army. Same mission, better kit, zero cost to the UK taxpayer.

Brit built kit

I always liken the Brit built kit of recent to Rover: Yes, it's built here costing a fair whack, but no one buys it apart from Brits (and the older gents too).

If we are SERIOUSLY going to look at building our own kit, it will HAVE to be marketable and cheap enough for other countries to buy too. That, coupled with expensive (Yes, we are bloody expensive) labourers and designers, basically rules us out.

It does pain me that we are not able to build our own kit.. but then, just look at some of our organisations that are struggling: BA is being ground into the dirt by their own staff!

Pathetic

Merlin V Chinook

If it's any help in the Merlin V Chinook debate my brother is a Air Engineer Tech' in the Commando Helicopter Force out in Afghan.

He's on the Sea Kings at the moment, but they're not looking forward to having the Merlins due to all the composite materials. A lot of their time with the Sea Kings is spent patching up the bullet holes with sheet metal as they tend to attract a lot of small arms fire, won't be able to do that with the fancy pants composite skinned Merlins. Expect to see a hell of a lot of helicopters taken out of the field to have some expensive panel work done! That's got to push the running costs up a fair bit?

Decimated?

You say the Tornado force in Iraq WI was subjected to "decimation"; I'd like to see some data please. So far I have found out that a total of 7 British aircraft of all types were downed in the first Iraq war, so this claim would appear to be misinformation. One of the major points about cuts to already substantially damaged defence defence forces is that we are now wading deep into Chamberlain territory. Cutting back forces (particularly airfields) at the critical level already reached will be hard to offset when we need them in the future, and war is inevitable. Defence is not like exotic food that can be cut back in hard times, it is an investment. Without proper investment in the most vital of core state functions a nation can fall. It only needs an unexpected war, and we are caught in a difficult situation. It will happen again, just not as any of us think that it will and we therefore need a wide spread of preparedness, or investment.

a title is required

"You're missing the fact that if they're built here the money goes to British corporations and British workers who must pay income and corporation tax meaning we get a massive cut of the money back."

Sorry - this is protectionist nonsense that would take us back to the 1970s. You'd never suggest that the government should only buy computers, defibrilators, or oil from the UK only, so why arms?

The UK arms industry is already a massive subsidy junkie (http://www.caat.org.uk/issues/jobs-subsidies.php) - the last thing that will do taxpayers and the military any favours will be to launch a deadbeat "Buy British" campaign. Local production does nothing (the UK would still be dependant on foreign suppliers) at great expense (see price differential mentioned in original article).

Political trafficking

Aha, a rare but decent article from Lewis without too many holes. The last paragraph was particularly good.

Sensible as these decisions are, there are some major things to think about with it. For starters, this is a decision that should have been made YEARS ago and it is now too late to be anything other than political spin. The Chinooks will take ages to enter service and Mr Ainsworth failed to mention anything about training the people to operate them. It is all very well doubling the Chinook fleet, but that is pointless if we don't have enough engineers or pilots to use them. It only takes a few months to build the damn thing, but it takes close to 4 years to have a decent pilot or enginner to keep the things flying.

The other thing only some people realise is that this decision actually represents a significant strategic shift in the UK's defence outlook. In short, it means for the next few years our troops (and the RAF/Navy as part of that) will become peacekeepers and armed policemen and maybe disaster rescue workers, not soldiers in the traditional sense of the term. In other words, we are no longer capable of fighting wars because with the exception of Trident, our entire defence infrastructure is completely focussed on Afghanistan. You may say this is a good thing, that is a political question, but it is a hugely significant change. It is a good job Argentina are not in the mood to take the Falklands Islands because we are not in a position to defend them properly any more. It was close enough back then!

Something to chew on...

Stupid SNP

I'm always amused to see the SNP bleat about defence cuts. They claim that an independent Scotland will save money through reduced defence spending but as soon as the government threatens to take away a pork-barrel project they start bleating. This is politically stupid as many Labour MPs have Scottish constituencies and a lot of projects in Scotland (e.g. the naval dockyards in Rosyth) are only there to keep Labour MPs in Westminster, so cutting defence spending will harm Labour and only benefit the SNP.

From which you might deduce that the SNP is complaining loudly about something it knows it has no control over or influence on, defence being a matter for Westminster not the present Scottish Parliament. It was the same when Labour cut the size of the Scottish army and the SNP went wailing about tradition, even though most of the well-known Scottish regiments were originally formed to defend the English against the Scots, and the SNP aren't keen on Scottish soldiers fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. I can only assume the SNP wants an immense ceremonial army for tourists, or maybe to repress the population.

On the other hand, per head of population Scotland contributes about twice as many people to the British armed forces as England does. So Scotland might be missed a little down south for purposes other than as a handy yet out-of-the-way nuclear weapons dump.

The Tornado was a superb aircraft

While I agree with most of what was said, I have to take umbrage with the comments on the Tornado.

The RAF lost 8 fixed wing aircraft in the first Gulf war - mostly to anti-aircraft fire. Not surprising really since the most important role of the Tornado was to take out Iraqi air-fields to ensure air superiority.

The Tornado was the only aircraft that could carry the JP233 ordnance capable of effectively taking out a runway in one pass.

In the first 24 hours of the air operation the Tornado flew more missions on a pro rata basis than any other type of aircraft. And of course, bombing an airfield is inherently dangerous as they tend to be pretty well defended with anti-air.

For a US-led bombing mission, 1 "bomber" would need 10 or more support aircraft to go with it at high altitude. The Tornado would go in at low level in pairs. If you've ever seen a Tornado do such a bombing run you'd know that they were overhead before you'd even hear them coming.

All-in-all, I'd say that was a *highly* effective aircraft. In today's theatre of course, it's not that useful, but calling it ineffective is right off. The only time a Tornado crew entered the LeMay Trophy they wiped the floor with the Americans - but that may have been down to the superior RAF training of course

This is about affordable defense, not speculative 'investment'!

Better, but could do a lot better!

Quite frankly, we have no lawful place in Iraq or Afghanistan, it is purely to support the corrupt UN, US, Corporations, and black market drug dealers, at little or no obvious benefit to us; it is a gross waste of our scare resources, which would be better spent preparing properly for the coming resource and territory wars, and cutting government debt.

Before anyone raises the terrorist card, the main reason terrorists are a threat here is because we let them, their agitators, and the parents of their future recruits, into this country in the first place, and continue to do so, even as 'Asylum seekers'. The government has even been negligent enough to fund radicals, including radical schools, both here and abroad. We already know that UK based Islamists are supporting and taking part in attacks on UK troops in Afghanistan; WTF, are we suicidal!?

As for supporting UK manufacturers, yes but only if they provide value for money, including reclaimed tax. We can ill afford white elephants and an ill equipped UK military just to support UK arms manufacturers. UK, and EU, manufacturers and workers must face losing contracts and jobs, to other manufacturers offering better overall value for money, or they will never be forced to improve.

Punching waaaaay above our weight

I think that our politicians need to learn that we are not a large colonial power any more, and cannot draw on the resources of an empire to fund our part in armed conflicts.

In terms of overall GDP and percentage spent on the military, compared to what we do in the World arena, I believe that we are seriously over-stretched. We do more than our European peers, and probably second only to America, but that doesn't mean that it is right.

We may have highly dedicated and trained people in all the armed forces, which allows us to attempt the types of operations we are current engaged in with some degree of success, but we can't sustain these operations for any length of time before exhausting the dedication of the people at the sharp end, our financial resources, or the will of the UK population.

The answer may be to retreat into our national borders, abrogate our international commitments and make the armed forces a national defense force, with some limited distance capability. This is one possible way we could balance cost vs. responsibility.

The downside of this, of course, is that the Americans (and possibly the Chinese, should they choose to step up to the mark), become world-police force(s) (Yay, Team America). This is obviously not desirable, given the way the 'mercans choose to justify too themselves why they should ignore the opinions of the rest of the world.

What is happening is that the world is moving into the next phase of disorder. After the colonial period, we had a post-colonial world where much of the governance from the colonial world persisted, and a lot of internal conflict was suppressed by the residual momentum of the system. The next phase was fledgling independent governments, who felt their way into the world arena slowly and quietly. We are now in the era of outspoken small countries of no influence, with governments that have shrugged of the trappings of the colonial powers (and much of their internal governance). They are often unaccountable to their people, leading to petty dictatorships (personal or institutional). This will lead to internal unrest in countries around the globe. Examples would be Zimbabwe, Indonesia, and to a certain extent Iran and Pakistan. There are others I could quote.

It is NOT possible to impose western style democracy on these countries. Many of their populations don't understand it, and often prevailing local/tribal and religious beliefs do not allow for democracy. It's just foreign to them, and any enforcement by outside powers (as is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq) will just be seen by the people as occupation followed by instantiation of puppet governments. It will not stick, and will result in either repression or conflict.

Saying that you can 'stabilize' a country to allow it to elect democratic governments just results in a sham government that will not be accepted by the people. Even if you are fortunate enough to get general acceptance, there will still be enough dissidents to re-start the conflict later once your stabilizing influence has left (just look at what is happening in Northern Ireland at the moment!)

What's the answer to world peace then? I'm sorry, I'm as baffled as the rest of you. I'm constantly surprised that we have had 50 years of relative (and I am aware people will argue with me on this) stability.

All I know is that I believe that the current attempts to civilize countries by force are more likely to polarize the world into opposing factions along petty divides (religious, ethnic or tribal probably, but natural resources may also be an influence). I proposing climbing into a hole, pulling a rock across the opening, and seeing how the world goes on without us.

What I hope is that it doesn't kick off until after I am too senile for it to matter. I feel sorry for my kids and future grandchildren, though.

Buy British...

The UK pretty much makes nothing that is sold abroad and those things that are, are massively outnumbered by things bought in. Money which flows around the UK wll go round and round, money that goes abroad is gone for good.

The UK is not self sufficient and this will get worse and worse as more things are bought from abroad, as we send more money abroad the pound will weaken (as we magic new money out of the air) making exports even harder, the only way to stop this is to invest locally, make things locally, this will be very painful in the short-term (25 years) but if the UK is going to have any longevity (and it's inhabitants want any decent level of employment) this has to happen.

Ok, for the hard of thinking, here's a couple of analogies.....

Your partner got two MP3 players for Christmas, you want one, you can either buy one from them for £100 or an identical one from the shop for £20, given you share a bank account which is the most cost effective solution?

Would you prefer to pay an offspring £10 pocket money to wash your car or use a £5 car wash?

Does this actually change anything though?

I'm not actually all that sure we should be applauding this really and not because we're buying American, British or Taiwanese.

Its more because this does nothing to solve the ultra short term view that the MOD takes towards spending which results in wildly fluctuating spending priorities which leave the constant (i.e. the chaps on the front line) woefully underfunded and equipped as the MOD swings sharply between big projects and short term emergency purchases such as these Chinooks.

The bottom line is (and Mr Page hasn't pointed this out) is that if there was a defence review every two or three years and if the findings of those reviews were carried out in full then we wouldn't have the need to canabalise large parts of the budget in some short sighted rush to buy "off the shelf" American kit that won't be ready until 2012/13 at the very earliest by which time the entire game may well have changed to a completely different part of the planet or may have ended (in ignominy, humiliation or "withdrawal with honour" I don't know) and we'll be sitting there wondering why we have 22 new Chinooks when we could have had more Destroyers and Frigates and less Trident nukes for example instead.

So in short this:

- Doesn't change anything.

- hasn't stopped short term fluctuations in spending.

- Hasn't killed off any silly cash black holes/big projects.

- Doesn't answer the question of how exactly are we meant to honour our existing commitments in the Caribbean, the Gulf, East Africa, South Atlantic AND defend two large carriers with 6 Destroyers and barely 13 or 14 frigates by 2018.

- Doesn't herald the start of much needed and regular defence reviews.

MOD doing "everything right for once"? Give me a break!

Tombstone because I sit on my own in a log cabin with a revolver awaiting the Lewis Page fanclub to come and kill me or neg-rep me at the very least...

Where to start!?!?

Whilst Lewis's rants are getting ever more amusing, it's due to their faint grasp of reality rather than any amazing prose.

Tornado ADV was designed for one RAF role - long-range interception of Ruskie bombers over the Icelandic Gap, with less use of mid-air refuelling. At the time, the yardsticks were the F-4M Phantom II and the very fast but short-ranged BAe (originally English Electric) Lightning F6, both used by the RAF for the air-def role. There was only one aircraft that had proven it could meet the criteria at the time - the eye-wateringly expensive F-14 Tomcat. Even the F-15 Eagle couldn't put a tick in all the boxes, despite being probably the best air superiority fighter of the day (Lightning aficiandos would like to remind the Septics that the Lightning F6 won most mock dogfights against USAF F-15s when the F-15 couldn't stand off and use Sparrows). Whilst Tornado knockers like Lewis like to bleat on about how the Torando F3 is not the best dogfighter, they never like to admit there are precious few aircraft even toady that can fulfill the role the ADV was designed for as well as Tornado. It combines supersonic dash with extreme range due to the compact, frugal and yet powerful engines; combat persistance with four medium-range and two short-range AAMs and a cannon, whilst still being able to carry droptanks; lower load on the pilot due to also having a "fightergator" in the rear seat, which means the pilot can spend more time looking out and manouvering; and is actually quite handy in a dogfight, being small (smaller than the F-15) and with the automatic sweeping wing giving good agility. As one RAF pilot put it, he can also simply keep turning and burning long after the F-16 pilot will have to break off from lack of fuel.

And still going on about Tornado bomber losses from the Gulf? Puh-lease! The RAF has long-since reviewed tactics and moved to mid-level guided bombs for such attacks, delivering them as well as any other NATO jets. But before we get too carried away, maybe we should consider that the Israelis still use low-level and long-range penetration tactics such as when they hit the Syrian "not-a-military-nuke-factory" the other year. If NATO needs to mount such an operation in the future (such as when we bomb the Iranian or Nork nuke facilities), Tornado will still be the best RAF option.

The there's Trident. Ever ask yourself why countries such as Iran and North Korea are so desperate to get nukes? Because it gives you a certain level of invulnerability against invasion. Do you think Ryahd or Ankara would have hosted the allied invasion of Iraq if Saddam had a proven nuke capability? Which begs the question, do we really want to give up our nukes just when such unappealling regimes as the Ayatollahs and Kim are so close ot getting them (thanks, UN, another great job!). So we still need the MAD option.

Which means we will stick with Trident as it's the only option that allows us to strike anywhere in the World. Which means we will need to protect the sub bases and the subs, which in turn means we need the anti-sub aircraft, though maybe the Nimrod is not the best answer.

Either way, this is just more political posturing meant to head off bad news before the coming snap election. And it's pointless news as more helicopters will not solve the problem in the Afghan just as it did not in Vietnam. If you simply get in the air to get from A to B then you lose control of the ground between A and B. This is the lesson the Septics didn't learnt in Vietnam, despite the amazing record of units like the Air Cav. We need to actually take and hold ground, especially villages, so we can start to influence the people. Otherwise they will belong to the Taliban, we will control nothing but the cities until the peaceniks manage to get our troops withdrawn, and then we will have to go back in ten years to root out Bin Laden's replacement.

Logistics Win Wars

One thing most air forces around the world are notoriously bad at is airlift capability. This is one area the USAF excels at is its large fleet of C-5, C-17, and C-130 cargo aircraft. The UK would be well-advised to purchase more C-17s and fewer attack planes.

Better idea yet

Scrap the whole UK mil, it's not terribly efficient yet hugely expensive. Just hire a couple BlackWater-like grunts from the US in times of need, should save billions per year.

More Tornado stuff

The RAF Lost 6 Tornados during the first Gulf War. Five were during low level attacks and one at medium altitude. Of the 5 that lost during low level attacks 2 were definitely shot down, 2 were probably shot down and one got blow up by its own bomb. So not a bad record. The Tornado was designed to drop bombs in all weathers at low level to achieve the maximum accuracy. If the Russians ever invaded western Europe, they would surely pick a cloudy day, when the American aircraft fleet would be unable to drop their laser guided bombs through the cloud, fog rain or snow showers. This is what happened in Kosovo and spurred the development of GPS guided weapons, which are unaffected by bad weather. So for Page to dismiss this brilliant aircraft so flippantly makes me wonder at the accuracy of the rest of his diatribe.

In the early 80s the RAF needed an anti-radar missile, the choice was the American HARM or the more expensive British ALARM, the RAF went for the ALARM missile. In Kosovo the Americans fired 100 HARMs against one missile site but didn't destroy it. The RAF fired one ALARM which due to its unique abilities, destroyed the site. So we can build good kit given half a chance.

Defence plan

This is an excellent article, better than articles in the papers and many news outlets on UK defence. I have been reading defence news from many souces, and am very pleased with this article. I am enormously frustrated by our government (incl. all MPs, Lords, etc.. everyone responsible) with defence government. There is currently and historically abundant criticism of defence government in this country, much stating of blatantly big cock-ups. Thank you and well-done to the author of this article, The Register, and the community involved with this article.

There are some problems with your post.

This doesn't affect me one bit as I'm not a pom, but as someone who likes to whinge about my own government's spending decisions I feel it's important to give credit where it's due. Good spending plans, and good writing as usual. Cheers!

RE: SkippyBing

".....Automatic wing sweep doesn't give particularly good agility either...." Really? So how come the RAF F3s still managed to do better than break even with USAF F-16s in NATO fighter meets? Even ignoring the fact that Tornado has much better long-range systems to knock the F-16s down (F-16 jocks like to rpetend that AMRAAM now makes them even), even in the close-range arena the figures show that the F-16 is not getting the certain kill you assume it must. Oh, could that be because adjustable wingsweep allows you to modify your profile to different speeds to gain better turn rates and roll rates whilst a fixed planform (like the F-16) is optimal for only a small speed range in one altitude level and a compromise for all others? There's a lovely story about USMC F-4 jocks who were incensed by a publicity shot for the then new F-16, where an F-16 and an F-4 were shown turning at low speed and medium altitude and trailing smoke, with the predicatable result that the F-16 looked like it was turning well inside the "lumbering" F-4. USAF pilots transferring to the F-16 soon started complaining that they were being bounced on training flights by aggressive USMC F-4s that were very eager to put the F-16 drivers in their place. The USAF was also upset to hear the experienced Rhino drivers were getting the best of such encounters and very happy to talk about it. Orders came down from on high to the USMC - do not emabarass the USAF's new F-16!

".....wing loading which for a low level penetration aircraft should be high to give good stability and for a fighter should be low....A Tornado may be able to fly circles longer than an F-16, but the F-16 can turn inside the Tornado and kill it before it runs out of fuel so not really a problem....." Low wingloading was the prime requirement in maybe 1918. Try a little reading - check out the kill ratios even from WW2 for higher-loaded Corsairs against low-loaded Zeros. A modern example with jets? The Mirage III had a higher wing-loading than any of the 60's MiGs, but the Israelis still completely dominated the air over the Middle East with Mirages against those same MiGs even when flown by Soviet instructors. And the majority of the IAF Mirage kills were with guns, not missiles, and in turning dogfights. The Phantom II also had a much higher wingloading than the same MiGs when they met over Vietnam, but rediscovery of air-tactics (well, they actually borrowed some training from the RAF, a well-kept Septic secret), allowed the USAF and USN F-4 jocks to dominate the more agile MiGs. Wingloading is just one factor, and is also very dependent on the speed. Variable wingsweep gives Torando actually better high-speed (including supersonic) manouverability, especially when it comes to quick changes of direction due to higher roll-rates, than the F-16, which means the Tornado can get a kill before we get down to the low-speed, banked turns where the F-16 has an advantage. Even then, the Tornado doesn't have to tamely sit in the nice, flat turn and let the F-16 get to a guns solution, as air-combat is not a 2d affair and the Tornado can manouvere well in all three planes. It can keep even take the fight downstairs to the low-level where it excels and simply run away from the F-16 whilst the F-16 won't be able to get radar lock even with the new AMRAAM, and the F-16 will have to break off after fifteen minutes on full afterburner whilst the Tornado can still keep going. At which point the Tornado turns round and picks up the an easy kill on the F-16 as it crawls for home.

"...The F-16, most airliners, gliders and vaguely modern fighters also have a higher ceiling than the Tornado...." And like that matters. Because even the old Skyflash missile would climb higher and faster than the MiG-29, the F-16, the F-15, or the Su-29, or any other fighter of that day or today. AMRAAM is supposedly even better. And flying very high means leaving ground-cover and showing yourself to every radar and IR detector for miles - not smart, bit like your argument.

".....Incidentally if you want to hold the ground in Afghanistan we might need to reintroduce conscription what with it being a really big bit of real estate...." Actually, all McCrystal is doing is repeating the Vietnamisation mantra that failed in Vietnam. It worked in Iraq only because the foreign jihadis managed to alienate the more modernised locals - in the Afghan, the Taliban ARE the locals, and they are happy living about a century behind how people in Iraq live. Add some history reading to your list. At the moment, the Afghan Army and Police are largely on par with the ARVN, with only a few units trusted and capable of really doing the job, and the rest so suspect as to be untrusted with loaded weapons in NATO choppers. The problem is those reliable units are not local to areas to Helmand, where the tribal structure means any outsider, even Afghan, is a foreigner. Unless we get the local Afghans on our side so they hold ground, simply dropping more troops in won't do the job because no Western politician will want to end their careers by underwriting the massive numbers that would be required. The Soviets tried the "win-it-from-the-air" approach with a lot more choppers, more jets and many, many more troops, and failed. And then the new choppers for UK forces won't arrive until 2012 - long after we're supposed to have left the area. What a sick joke!