Yowsa - sunset time

[JonS]

The British armed forces are about to get a severe haircut :eek:

At a quick count it looks like they'll be losing two AS-90 regiments, and two Challenger regiments, plus a brigade (so, in addition to the two armd regts, presumbaly one inf bn will be axed too?).

It looks like operational over-stretch for the British is likely to continue into the indefinite future. With the number of brigades they're talking about, each one will be spending 6-7 months in Afghanistan, then ~18 months at home, then back to Afghanistan.

Link (PDF download)

[Affentitten]

Some of the cuts make sense and are really just preventing good money being thrown after bad. The Nimrod refurb, as the BBC article notes is already 8 years late and was a kludge on an antique airframe anyway. And the Ark Royal is also a relic and pointless if you're not going to keep the Harriers.

The arty stuff is interesting. Not sure I want to argue with JonS on this, but maybe it's a recognition that broad application of arty is not as important in future warfare scenarios.

[JonS]

The arty stuff is interesting. Not sure I want to argue with JonS on this, but maybe it's a recognition that broad application of arty is not as important in future warfare scenarios.

Yeah. I'm not sure really. In terms of balanced forces it makes sense - they'll have as many AS90 regts as there are 'heavy' brigades. Also the L118 is getting a heck of a lot of use at the moment, so I wonder if they'll re-role the AS90 guys to light guns. Given they also need to lose 7k headcount my guess is they'll chop one (~500 soldiers?) and *might* re-role the other.

Regarding the utility of artillery in future warfare - there are a lot of nice buzzwords in the full review about 'future capablities' and 'precision munitions' ... but ... meh. About every 10-15 years the RA gets lined up for the guillotine. As the old saying goes - in peace the cry is mobility and maneuvre, in war it's firepower.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I was surprised that they were going to axe the Harriers, their last CV reserved for helicopters. You'd think a modern British navy should retain some sort of Falklands scenario capability.

All the more odd because they plan on getting two new CVs. One would thing one would retain the one CV plus aircraft to retain some crew and keep the institutional skills up. To completely abandon it and picking it up again in a decade or so seems very strange indeed. They'd have to start from scratch. IMHO not a good idea.

[Affentitten]

As the old saying goes - in peace the cry is mobility and maneuvre, in war it's firepower.

We had a 'scandal' here a few weeks ago when a digger in Afghanistan sent an expletive filled email back to a mate saying that in a recent firefight there wasn't enough arty and CAS. This issue of a front line soldier saying he wanted more fire support, surely unprecedented in the history of warfare, was beaten up by the media into the government and ADF "letting our boys down".

[Stalins Organ]

How many batteries and squadrons did he think was "enough" against how many enemy light infantry I wonder?

That's the trouble with the west today - the infantry is pampered & has lost the will to assault! I blame it on the yanks of course - too much bloody artillery in WW2 - that's where it all stems from.....

(ducks for cover......)

[JonS]

That's the trouble with the west today - the infantry is pampered & has lost the will to assault!

I know your post was a snark, but it's often presented in various similar forms as a serious argument. And, to a degree, I agree with it - it's not like in WWII (or Korea, or Vietnam, or the Falklands, or ...) every section had it's own section of Typhoons circling around and bty of 25-pr on call every time they stepped across the start line.

On the other hand, we aren't fighting WWII (or Korea, or Vietnam, or the Falklands, or ...). Seemingly crazy amounts of fire support is the norm, or something close to the norm. It's reinforced by the general reluctance to suffer casualties ... the easiest and best way of doing is to use a really large hammer on anything that looks like a nail.

[Stalins Organ]

Yep - and it's pretty understnadable - the general public mostly dosen't actually think that this war is worth people dying for - or at least not their own people!

[Michael Emrys]

...the general public mostly dosen't actually think that this war is worth people dying for - or at least not their own people!

For once I think you've hit on something. After all, war when you get right down to it, is largely a contest of wills. During the Southeast Asia War, someone likened North Viet Nam to a rabbit running from a fox. "The fox is running for his dinner, but the rabbit is running for his life!" Once the Vietnamese had determined that they were not going to submit to foreign domination any more, they were willing to pay any price to achieve that end. The US and its allies were not that determined.

I think the West faces a similar situation in the Middle East (including for this argument Afghanistan). The people there don't want foreign-imposed solutions, they want to work out their own, even if those suck. And it looks like a fair few are willing to die for that, with even more willing to kill for it; and while Westerners may be willing enough to kill, they are on average just a bit less willing to die for these stakes. Doesn't mean that we wouldn't dig in our heels if faced with a serious and immediate threat—as I think has been amply demonstrated in the past—but since the end of WW II most of the time the threats have been somewhat nebulous, involving "interests" that the home folks may or may not identify with.

Michael

[Tero]

How many batteries and squadrons did he think was "enough" against how many enemy light infantry I wonder?

That's the trouble with the west today - the infantry is pampered & has lost the will to assault! I blame it on the yanks of course - too much bloody artillery in WW2 - that's where it all stems from.....

(ducks for cover......)

An interesting parallel (of sorts) is the US practise concerning cutting payment of combat pay and even reclaiming paid combat pay from fallen soldiers. Do they justify it as "breach of contract" for defaulting before the signed term of service is up ?

Seriously: it seems cost effectivness is the order of the day. The development in engagement profile in terms of cost has shifted to favour the low-tech, low-cost paramilitary style force. A single sniper can elicit a response worth a couple of million €/£/$ with little or no results except friendly casualties and a bad media hose down.

And in keeping with the "duck and cover" theme it seems the WWII German military thinkers were right: against hordes of motivated indiginous fighters smart, tailored, precision small unit tactics backed up by a few high cost quality pieces of equipment and lots of low cost infantry assets IS better than hordes of (in this case) high cost gizmos and gadgets and state of the art electronics.

[Other Means]

As ever, an interesting take from Lewis Page at The Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/20/comment/

[Blackhorse]

An interesting parallel (of sorts) is the US practise concerning cutting payment of combat pay and even reclaiming paid combat pay from fallen soldiers. Do they justify it as "breach of contract" for defaulting before the signed term of service is up ?

??? Not sure what you are on about with this statement? Linky (or more info) please.

[dieseltaylor]

Last Christmas, regular Reg readers may remember, in a freak outburst of common sense Labour defence ministers announced plans to buy no less than 22 more desperately-needed Chinook helicopters. The powerful Chinook, only helicopter able to really overcome the tough hot-and-high conditions of Afghanistan, is the single greatest desire of our hard-pressed troops in Helmand. Lack of Chinooks is the worst handicap their commanders face. Say what you like about Labour, but in their last months they did the right thing and ordered a good big number of these vital machines. They planned to pay for them, sensibly, by cutting some Tornado bombers among other things.

Good old Mr Cameron, though - the soldier's friend - has cut this order to 12, almost halving it. He received massive cheers yesterday from ignorant MPs yesterday, saying:

There is no cut whatsoever in the support for our forces in Afghanistan ... we have been and will be providing more for our brave forces in Afghanistan [including] crucially, at last, the right level of helicopter capability.

That is perilously close to being an outright lie, we'd suggest. No matter what you think of the rest of his plans, Mr Cameron's decision to cut the Chinook order (to preserve Tornado bombers, too!) is an unforgivable betrayal of our fighting men and women at war right now - and then he has the gall to try and pretend that he's actually decided to order some helicopters rather than cutting an existing order

cameron is obviously a prick or simply has been hornswoggled.

[Michael Emrys]

Pointy-nosed fast movers have always been more sexy when it comes to budget time. It's been that way for over 60 years now.

Michael

[Wicky]

RIP The Harrier

Shot down more than its fair share...

The Harriers shot down at least 20 enemy aircraft without a single combat loss in return and were nicknamed the "black death" by Argentine pilots.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11584481

[JonS]

RIP The Harrier

I realised recently that I'm just starting to get to the point where I remember major pieces of military equipment, which are now going out of service, coming in to service.

'Course, Emry's remembers the debate in the commons about whether the ballista should be acquired to replace the catapult.

[Affentitten]

I realised recently that I'm just starting to get to the point where I remember major pieces of military equipment, which are now going out of service, coming in to service.

On the othe hand, you can probably remember military systems that were being considered for retirement when you were a kid that are still being patched together today.

[JonS]

Yep.

But to clarify - I'm not just thinking of this country's military, but around the world too

[Stalins Organ]

Hang on - they are getting rid of some Tornados, all of them eventually, and buying more Chinooks......and somehow this is unbalanced or evil? Tornados going, chinooks coming......SO shaking his head wondering what hte problem is...

I mean given that there ARE going to be masive cuts in defence spending, it seems to me that going ahead with any increase in any area of defence spending is a fairly powerful signal that it is considered more important than an area that is going to suffer cuts!

Seems to me that what has actually happened is that the "pointy nosed fast movers" have been cut to enable all sort of othe things to be not cut - including more slow whirly-wings to be fielded.

And of course the tornados are in use in Afghanistan too, and wasn't someone just pointing out that the troops on the gound are always complaining that there's never enough airpower?

Presumably then there's a need to retain some of the pointy-nosed-fast-things.....for a bit at least......'cos they can carry bombs that the slow-whirly-wing-things can't?

[Affentitten]

Presumably then there's a need to retain some of the pointy-nosed-fast-things.....for a bit at least......'cos they can carry bombs that the slow-whirly-wing-things can't?

Not to mention that the fixed wing craft aren't exactly in a high threat environment. They're not mixing it up with Fulcrums or anything. So you don't need the latest, greatest and most expensive. Bring back the Skyraider!

[Michael Emrys]

Not to mention that the fixed wing craft aren't exactly in a high threat environment. They're not mixing it up with Fulcrums or anything. So you don't need the latest, greatest and most expensive. Bring back the Skyraider!

Very good point. The problem is not fixed wing, the problem is the Air Force demanding supersonic performance in all (or at least nearly all) its combat aircraft. The A-10 for instance was designed for this kind of job and performs it almost perfectly, but has always been the unwanted stepchild in the USAF hierarchy, who have tried to retire it several times over the last three decades. It however is now getting a bit long in the tooth and does need replacing, but we need to be clear what the requirements are: very rugged and able to complete its mission after receiving battle damage; relatively inexpensive; ability to loiter over or near the battle area for extended periods without needing to refuel; and a generous ordnance load. What isn't needed for this particular mission is supersonic speed and the ability to dogfight with planes that go fast. There is certainly a role for high speed strike aircraft, but CAS ain't it.

Michael

[JonS]

... relatively inexpensive; ...

... which means that significant capabilities MUST be foregone.

What isn't needed for this particular mission is supersonic speed and the ability to dogfight with planes that go fast. There is certainly a role for high speed strike aircraft, but CAS ain't it.

That's a start, but what else can go? High altitude? Airborne threat receivers? Data links? Airborne radar? Manoeuvrability? The GAU? Any and all air to air capability? Stealth?*

I sometimes wonder if a C-130 of C-17 with racks and racks and racks of precision guided bombs of various sizes that can be pushed out the back door wouldn't make for a good CAS platform.

On the other hand, with a whole bunch of F-16s already sitting around, why not use those?

Jon

* OTOH, to play the devils advocate, high speed means that relatively fewer airframes can provide a similar level of CAS availability in say Afghanistan, either with fewer in the air and rapidly transiting to wherever they're needed, or screeching off from a standing start on the ground.

[Tero]

Just found this link.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26521.htm

The claim is the cost for each killed Taliban soldier is 50 million a pop (pun intended or not, depends on your POV).

EDIT: if that is true or even close to being plausible then it is no wonder the NATO militaries are starting to feel the need for cut backs.

[Tero]

By Blackhorse

??? Not sure what you are on about with this statement? Linky (or more info) please.

Sorry, no linky as my google-fu is defective at the moment.

The claim I made is based on news reports about how relatives of US KIA have been slapped with demands by the US military to pay back salary paid before the person was killed but paid until the (say) end of the month. The same reports have had the US military claim the relatives for reimbursement for equipment not returned/recovered.

[Michael Emrys]

OTOH, to play the devils advocate, high speed means that relatively fewer airframes can provide a similar level of CAS availability in say Afghanistan, either with fewer in the air and rapidly transiting to wherever they're needed, or screeching off from a standing start on the ground.

The problems with that are twofold (at least) in my view. One is that it is harder to bomb accurately from a fast plane than from one not so fast. Yeah, I know, not a problem with somebody on the ground (or even flying nearby) designating for precision guided munitions, but what do you do when those are not available?

Secondly, the fast movers burn a lot more fuel per time on in the air. Either they have to spend more time hooked to a tanker or back on the ground, which means not available to provide support, or they have to carry more fuel and less ordnance. None of that is a Good Thing.

A wild card here is how will pilotless aircraft effect the equation? The services see this as the way to go in the future, certainly for CAS and they are even talking about pilotless dogfighters, although that seems much further off.

Michael