UK Military discussion.

[Annetts key]

mods note - split from this thread

It’s very annoying that our military keeps finding itself with stop gap solutions or capability gaps due to the government and the department of defence preferring to save money rather than keeping the old kit in use until suitable replacements are available.

The government in the past decided we no longer needed aircraft carriers. So for a long time we had none. That has obviously since been corrected. But it’s still uncertain if both of our carriers will be funded for the future, even though normally military ships spend two or three months of a year in port undergoing maintenance and refits. So you need a minimum of two if you don’t want to give an enemy a window of opportunity.

Then we had the Nimrod mess. This left us with no effective maritime patrol aircraft, allowing the Russians to operate their submarines in the seas around the U.K. with significantly less chance of detection.

It also hindered any search and rescue operations at sea.

We eventually ended up with Boeing P-8 Poseidons. But the gap in capability for so long was not good. This year (2022) the last of the nine aircraft was delivered.

We took operational BAE Systems Harrier II (GR9) aircraft out of service to save money with the last flight in December 2010. It wasn’t until January 2019 that the first squadron of Lockheed Martin the F-35B Lightning (F-35 Lightning II) aircraft were combat ready. Another capability gap of many years.

Now that we don’t have any of our own Boeing Sentry AEW.1 (E-3 Sentry) aircraft that are operational, we have to rely on other NATO members to provide AWACS facilities while we await the delivery of the Boeing Wedgetail AEW1 (E-7 / 737 AEW&C) aircraft that are on order. The order for five was reduced to only three. And delivery dates have slipped, now the first operational aircraft is not expected until 2024.

So yet again we have a capability gap. Even when all three aircraft are delivered and operational, only having three means we can only effectively have one operational in the field at any one time. Compare that to the seven Sentry AEW.1 we originally had.

This is just looking at this from a U.K. perspective, as I don’t know about the other Western countries and their militaries. But if Russia was looking at just our government and military, it’s no wonder that Putin thought that the U.K. was no longer serious about defending anything other than our own territory.

 

[GS250]

This is just looking at this from a U.K. perspective, as I don’t know about the other Western countries and their militaries. But if Russia was looking at just our government and military, it’s no wonder that Putin thought that the U.K. was no longer serious about defending anything other than our own territory.

Complacency. Pure and simple. At the time the Nimrods and Sea Harriers were scrapped Russia was no longer seen as a genuine threat. There was one eye on China and North Korea (scrapping carriers though?) plus obviously a lot of attention on the Middle East.

However...the goalposts have rapidly changed once again and whilst Russia is still very unlikely to attack a NATO country let alone the UK there is now no excuse for such cutbacks.

I suppose you could say though, that our actual defensive option is Trident. Reassuringly, it also appears that Russia genuinely believes that we will use them so it is an actual deterrent.

 

[najaB]

There was one eye on China and North Korea (scrapping carriers though?) plus obviously a lot of attention on the Middle East.

For which the Invincible class and their associated Sea Harriers were virtually useless. They were primarily designed for fleet defence and ASW work, they weren't really big enough for any meaningful force projection.

 

[Bald Rick]

For which the Invincible class and their associated Sea Harriers were virtually useless. They were primarily designed for fleet defence and ASW work, they weren't really big enough for any meaningful force projection.

Did alright in 1982!

 

[GS250]

Did alright in 1982!

They did. Although a fully capable carrier group with Buccaneers and Phantoms would have provided a lot more options. That's actually one of the reasons Argentina decided to chance their arm. They no longer had a fully capable fleet air arm to worry about.

Argentina's Air Force especially proved to be a tough nut to crack. Whilst we shot a lot down, they still did some real damage. We got by on superior training and getting every last drop out of the equipment.

Russia probably have the same sense that we are presently vulnerable. However as has been discussed plenty of times, we would not be acting alone. Even joining forces with a handful of the better equipped European nations would be enough to see them off good and proper.

 

[Yew]

They did. Although a fully capable carrier group with Buccaneers and Phantoms would have provided a lot more options. That's actually one of the reasons Argentina decided to chance their arm. They no longer had a fully capable fleet air arm to worry about.

Argentina's Air Force especially proved to be a tough nut to crack. Whilst we shot a lot down, they still did some real damage. We got by on superior training and getting every last drop out of the equipment.

Indeed, somehow Thatcher managed to get a lot of political capital out of the War, despite the fact that it would never have happened if it wasn't for her defence cuts.

 

[birchesgreen]

The UK military isn't in a good state in many ways though the rest of the West's militaries (US aside) is worse!

 

[Iskra]

They did. Although a fully capable carrier group with Buccaneers and Phantoms would have provided a lot more options. That's actually one of the reasons Argentina decided to chance their arm. They no longer had a fully capable fleet air arm to worry about.

Argentina's Air Force especially proved to be a tough nut to crack. Whilst we shot a lot down, they still did some real damage. We got by on superior training and getting every last drop out of the equipment.

Russia probably have the same sense that we are presently vulnerable. However as has been discussed plenty of times, we would not be acting alone. Even joining forces with a handful of the better equipped European nations would be enough to see them off good and proper.

The same Russia that is currently being embarrassed as a paper tiger in Ukraine? I don't think we've much to fear from the conventional military of Russia anymore.

There will always be capability gaps. There always have been capability gaps. The OP reads just like wistfully misplaced nostalgia for a non-existent time when everything was rosey. We have our allies (and look at how Ukraine's allies are helping it out now), but also our military are fantastic at making do.

The reality is, we can't afford top notch stuff in every department, so we focus on what's most important, specialise and focus on training. The UK punches well above its weight militarily, it would be nice if we could appreciate that rather than moaning.

Indeed, somehow Thatcher managed to get a lot of political capital out of the War, despite the fact that it would never have happened if it wasn't for her defence cuts.

The Argentinian's were eyeing-up the Falklands well before Thatcher was in power and it was Britain's 1970's sovereignty negotiations that gave Argentina the opinion the UK wasn't bothered about the Falklands. I'd argue that it was Argentinian domestic politics that were the main driver of the invasion actually happening; they were after a short, victorious war to galvanise support for the Junta. However, what I would say is that Thatcher knew an invasion was likely and could have stopped it, but chose not to, for her own political gain.

 

[Annetts key]

There will always be capability gaps. There always have been capability gaps. The OP reads just like wistfully misplaced nostalgia for a non-existent time when everything was rosey. We have our allies (and look at how Ukraine's allies are helping it out now), but also our military are fantastic at making do.

The reality is, we can't afford top notch stuff in every department, so we focus on what's most important, specialise and focus on training.

Absolutely no nostalgia involved. There is a very big difference between a country having a properly organised system where a later (more modern/advanced/whatever) system is phased in before the existing system is phased out and just dumping our forces into what could be a very compromised situation (capability gap) should we find ourselves at war with anyone.

We are one of the top ten richest countries in the world (often placed at position five or six as a percentage of GDP), so to say that we can’t afford a proper translation is just absolute rubbish.

What’s been happening is a combination of very poor management in both the Ministry of Defence and in government generally, lack of consistent defence funding, defence reviews being driven by saving money, and ignoring lessons of the past. Specifically, often wars occur from unexpected directions.

A lot of the above have been affected by choices made by the politicians in power at the time. How many times has new equipment taken a long time to be made available because governments have kept putting off making a decision? Or changing their minds. And then, surprise, the equipment now costs more than forecast years earlier…

 

[Iskra]

Absolutely no nostalgia involved. There is a very big difference between a country having a properly organised system where a later (more modern/advanced/whatever) system is phased in before the existing system is phased out and just dumping our forces into what could be a very compromised situation (capability gap) should we find ourselves at war with anyone.

We are one of the top ten richest countries in the world (often placed at position five or six as a percentage of GDP), so to say that we can’t afford a proper translation is just absolute rubbish.

What’s been happening is a combination of very poor management in both the Ministry of Defence and in government generally, lack of consistent defence funding, defence reviews being driven by saving money, and ignoring lessons of the past. Specifically, often wars occur from unexpected directions.

A lot of the above have been affected by choices made by the politicians in power at the time. How many times has new equipment taken a long time to be made available because governments have kept putting off making a decision? Or changing their minds. And then, surprise, the equipment now costs more than forecast years earlier…

But in the case of AWACS, there are allies and other systems that can cover the gap (Crowsnest) or even any other aircraft with its radar switched on flying high would do a similar job. Any Russian aggressor would also have to fly past or over multiple allied nations too. If they wanted to attack mainland GB they could do it with a cruise missile anyway, so AWACS would not prevent it (although a Type 45 destroyer might). It's nothing new and you are ignoring that systems have grown a lot more complex (and capable), therefore take longer to develop, make, troubleshoot, train-on and get into service.

What are you taking out of the UK budget then to afford that?

Yes, but what's your plan to change that? Wars are often unexpected and we haven't always been fully prepared for them, but our track record in them is pretty good.

Yes, I agree there is shortsightedness, that's the nature of our democratic system unfortunately and affects all areas, not just the military.

 

[deltic]

The problem is possibly that we are always fighting the last war and it takes so long to bring new weapons into use. The present conflict in Ukraine shows some weapons are now practically useless, eg some ground support aircraft while the use of drone swarms to overwhelm air defences requires a new way of thinking. It is not sustainable to use £100k missiles to take out a drone that costs a few hundred. The war has also showed the importance of maintaining hardware, large amounts of Russia's stockpile turns out to be rusting away and no use to anyone. Its a shame more was not done to develop a proper European army so counties could specialise what they do well rather than trying to do everything badly.

 

[Gloster]

We no longer have the knowledge of war and so the need to maintain our forces is forgotten. Politicians like Colonel Heath and Major Healey had seen war and knew that defence was important, and the large numbers of former conscripts and national servicemen had some idea and so some familiarity with what the services do. Nowadays most people just see them as something expensive and politicians, equally clueless, see defence as somewhere to make economies in order to make popular, headline-grabbing tax cuts.

 

[Iskra]

We no longer have the knowledge of war and so the need to maintain our forces is forgotten. Politicians like Colonel Heath and Major Healey had seen war and knew that defence was important, and the large numbers of former conscripts and national servicemen had some idea and so some familiarity with what the services do. Nowadays most people just see them as something expensive and politicians, equally clueless, see defence as somewhere to make economies in order to make popular, headline-grabbing tax cuts.

I'm not sure this is true. Conflict is closer than ever and more people can see what it's really like than ever before in unedited, unfiltered detail on platforms like Twitter and Youtube right now and it isn't pretty. I think what you mean is Britain is no longer under direct threat of invasion or attack and we've collectively forgotten what it feels like? If that's the case, while it is broadly true, recently there is plenty of talk of nuclear war and I've no doubt a lot of people have felt that there is a real possibility of that again for the first time in a long time. Defence spending hasn't really been cut in recent years, it's been going up since 2018.

 

[GS250]

I'm not sure this is true. Conflict is closer than ever and more people can see what it's really like than ever before in unedited, unfiltered detail on platforms like Twitter and Youtube right now and it isn't pretty. I think what you mean is Britain is no longer under direct threat of invasion or attack and we've collectively forgotten what it feels like? If that's the case, while it is broadly true, recently there is plenty of talk of nuclear war and I've no doubt a lot of people have felt that there is a real possibility of that again for the first time in a long time. Defence spending hasn't really been cut in recent years, it's been going up since 2018.

An interesting comparison was made around 10 years ago regarding the UK and French armed forces. On the surface it appear that the French were getting better value equipment wise out of their defence budget than we were. We're not talking about sheer numbers either, but a more detailed examination of equipment and its capabilities. I'm not talking about who has the better armed force, but purely value for money. I wish I could dig that article out. Pretty sure it was in an informed monthly magazine and not just an armchair expert's whine. Of course, as a poster above has suggested, you need the right type of personnel to form an effective fighting force and this is why we punch above our weight.

What I would say though, is that our own Forces fill in for the capability gaps of other major players too. For example and this is from a friend who is a senior NCO in the US Army, they use our guys for intelligence gathering when they feel they need the very best. It also wouldn't surprise me if the UK forces personnel were directly involved (as suggested by the Russians) in the successful attacks on the Russian Navy. No disrespect to the Ukrainians who have fought like Lions, but there are some things that simply need a bit more expertise than their forces could achieve.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2022 ==

Indeed, somehow Thatcher managed to get a lot of political capital out of the War, despite the fact that it would never have happened if it wasn't for her defence cuts.

Yes. As played out perfectly by Meryl Streep in the Iron Lady film. One of those moments where our former PM realised she had made absolutely the wrong decision.

 

[Spamcan81]

Did alright in 1982!

Only because we had the Harrier. Not giving them an AEW capability cost the Navy dear.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2022 ==

Absolutely no nostalgia involved. There is a very big difference between a country having a properly organised system where a later (more modern/advanced/whatever) system is phased in before the existing system is phased out and just dumping our forces into what could be a very compromised situation (capability gap) should we find ourselves at war with anyone.

We are one of the top ten richest countries in the world (often placed at position five or six as a percentage of GDP), so to say that we can’t afford a proper translation is just absolute rubbish.

What’s been happening is a combination of very poor management in both the Ministry of Defence and in government generally, lack of consistent defence funding, defence reviews being driven by saving money, and ignoring lessons of the past. Specifically, often wars occur from unexpected directions.

A lot of the above have been affected by choices made by the politicians in power at the time. How many times has new equipment taken a long time to be made available because governments have kept putting off making a decision? Or changing their minds. And then, surprise, the equipment now costs more than forecast years earlier…

Well said. There was a time when replacements came on line before the old stuff was scrapped. We didn't scrap the Lightning and then wait a few years before buying the Phantom.

 

[GS250]

Only because we had the Harrier. Not giving them an AEW capability cost the Navy dear.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2022 ==


Well said. There was a time when replacements came on line before the old stuff was scrapped. We didn't scrap the Lightning and then wait a few years before buying the Phantom.

You could argue the biggest loss was the humble Fairey Gannet. Without this even the Phantoms would have been far less capable when it comes to knowing who was roughly where. Their longer range weapons simply not as effective without decent AEW.

In the event, the Harriers were better suited to the close in dogfight type scenarios than the Phantoms ever were. However the fact it got to that stage was against everything that modern warfare strategy was heading to.

 

[Iskra]

You could argue the biggest loss was the humble Fairey Gannet. Without this even the Phantoms would have been far less capable when it comes to knowing who was roughly where. Their longer range weapons simply not as effective without decent AEW.

In the event, the Harriers were better suited to the close in dogfight type scenarios than the Phantoms ever were. However the fact it got to that stage was against everything that modern warfare strategy was heading to.

Again our allies helped us out massively, with the Chilean intelligence services watching the Argentine airbases and tipping us off as aircraft left, and the US supplied sidewinder missile being as important as the harriers themselves.

 

[ainsworth74]

Trying to drag us into the 21st century rather than refighting the Falklands War (as interesting as that may be and it is!) I think the main issue that face two out of three branches of the UK Armed Forces is less what kit they're buying and more the volume of kit that's being bought. The RAF and the Royal Navy mostly have all the right stuff just not in sufficient quantities.

Take the RAF for instance. Typhoon remains an excellent air superiority aircraft and a capable enough ground attack platform but we only ordered 160 (from an original planned 232 when the contracts were first inked) and only a little over 100 actually in service. Those airframes are having to provide air defence for the UK and Falklands (four permanently based down there), air defence for UK/NATO forces deployed in a putative combat scenario, ground attack support for that force and possibly launching cruise missile attacks or other bombing against enemy infrastructure. Excellent aircraft. Not enough of it to go around. The E-7 Wedgetail AWACAS is, again, an excellent aircraft by all accounts and a worthy successor to the E-3. But we're only getting three of them, down from five originally ordered down from seven when the E-3 was originally ordered in the 1980s. Three pretty much means that there will probably be one available for deployment but that's about it. Especially once they get older. Another excellent aircraft. Not enough of it. The P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. Again, excellent by all accounts but we're only getting nine of them. This follows from the shambles of the Nimrod MRA4 programme of the 2000s which was originally supposed to lead to twenty-one airframes to replace the Nimrod MR2 fleet of thirty-five. Now perhaps we don't need the Cold War era fleet of thirty-five maritime patrol aircraft anymore but if the fairly peaceful world of the 1990s and early 2000s suggested a fleet of twenty-one was required does a fleet of nine in the in the late 2010s/early 2022s really seem wise? Again, brilliant aircraft, not enough of it.

Similar story in the Royal Navy. Two excellent aircraft carriers that should have been three (and we spent enough to build three due to Treasury induced slowdowns to deliver an in year budget friendly expenditure profile at the expense of long term cost increase). Seven excellent Astute class attack submarines down from the twelve SSNs it was determined were needed in the late 90s/early 00s. Six excellent Type 45 air defence destroyers rather than the twelve we originally supposed to get. Eight Type 26 frigates rather than the thirteen we should get. The RAF/Royal Navy were supposed to get 138 F-35Bs (the B variant is actually pretty damn good, especially in comparison to a Harrier) but at the moment only 48 have been ordered and expectation is we might get to 60 or 80 odd). Right aircraft. Not enough of it.

All of the above are the right kit (though sometimes it took a while to come good!) and are the better than anything the Russians field, at least in any significant number anyway, but we just don't have enough of it. Those two branches only real issue, beyond numbers, is the sometimes insidious cuts to logistics (tanker fleets of the airborne and sea based variety for instance have shrunk in recent decades) which means that the remaining Gucci kit might not actually be able to get to the fight or remain in the fight in the first place.

The one exception to this is the utter disaster zone which is the British Army which is, like the other two, to small but unlike them hasn't got the foggiest clue what to buy and when it does try and buy something makes a utter dogs breakfast of it. Most recently Ajax armoured vehicle which is surely for the chop in the near future meaning yet more wasted time and money whilst legacy Cold War (though modernised) systems will soldier on for even longer. The fact that heads haven't rolled at the top of the MoD and British Army because of the diabolical heavy vehicle procurement, which stretches back, quite literally, decades and has delivered very little other than glossy brochures and the occasional demonstrator vehicle is frankly criminal (yes yes I know it probably isn't actually a crime what's been done but it feels like it should be).

The issue that faces the UK military to my mind is primarily one of resources. We actually, army excepted, end up buying the right stuff. But decades of "we will only ever fight wars of choice against nations that don't stand a chance anyway" has led us to a fairly parlous position in terms of raw numbers.

 

[JamesT]

Well said. There was a time when replacements came on line before the old stuff was scrapped. We didn't scrap the Lightning and then wait a few years before buying the Phantom.

We scrapped the TSR-2 in 1965, the successor for the strike role was the Tornado introduced in 1979.

As well as the military seeming to be utterly incompetent at purchasing, (though the UK is not alone, the US military also appears to suffer from an inability to get as many units as planned when the budget was set), the manufacturers don't seem to be able to stick to a price. Where else would it be acceptable to bid that you can supply 21 aircraft for £2bn in 7 years, then after 14 years and £3.8bn have failed to produce a single working plane?

 

[Gloster]

I am not sure if the Class 45 destroyers should be described as ‘excellent’. In February this year all six were in harbour or dock: only one could honestly be described as being for routine rotational reasons.

 

[swt_passenger]

I am not sure if the Class 45 destroyers should be described as ‘excellent’. In February this year all six were in harbour or dock: only one could honestly be described as being for routine rotational reasons.

A fairly decent weapons system is not much cop if the ships main engines and generation system are unreliable. But taking a few out of service together for “upgrades” doesn’t send a good signal; it makes it look like you don’t really need them at all.

A year ago it was probably reasonable to ask “why do we even need such sophisticated area defence warships, they’ll never be used”...

 

[GS250]

Trying to drag us into the 21st century rather than refighting the Falklands War (as interesting as that may be and it is!) I think the main issue that face two out of three branches of the UK Armed Forces is less what kit they're buying and more the volume of kit that's being bought. The RAF and the Royal Navy mostly have all the right stuff just not in sufficient quantities.

Agreed. I guess as far as the Typhoon was concerned, what other choices were there for air superiority at the time? F15 the obvious one although that ship sailed when we decided with the Tornado ADV as opposed to the F15. Replacing the maligned but reasonably capable ADV with F15's would have been something of a stopgap as we are talking about an already 25+ yr old aircraft no matter how proven or upgraded it could become. Politically though...that would have been disastrous as we all know the immediate question would have been "why did you bother with the ADV in the first place?". Rafale was an offshoot of the Eurofighter. Yes many argue it delivers better value than the Eurofighter so you can have more of them...but fanboy talk aside...its just not as good. Gripen? Yes decent value aircraft like the Rafale but not in the same league as a Typhoon. F22 simply too expensive of course. F18 of some description was maybe an option but its just not quite quick enough as an interceptor and again...its getting on a bit like the F15.

The F35 order is something of a bone of contention though. Ordering F35b for both Air Force and Navy probably another compromise. Ok, so the F35b probably okay for the the Navy as its clear we don't like those pesky catapults in the UK. Its far more capable than the FA2 Harriers and in spite of fanboy nonsense, is a lethal piece of kit. However the RAF could have done with the A version really. Greater range and greater payload. A proper replacement for the Tornado GR4. Again though...its about numbers and we simply don't have enough F35s at present.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2022 ==

We scrapped the TSR-2 in 1965, the successor for the strike role was the Tornado introduced in 1979.

As well as the military seeming to be utterly incompetent at purchasing, (though the UK is not alone, the US military also appears to suffer from an inability to get as many units as planned when the budget was set), the manufacturers don't seem to be able to stick to a price. Where else would it be acceptable to bid that you can supply 21 aircraft for £2bn in 7 years, then after 14 years and £3.8bn have failed to produce a single working plane?

The F1-11 was screaming out to be purchased. It would have been the right aircraft for the RAF. Of course, it would have made the need to procure the Tornado redundant so the timeline of the F1-11 replacement would have been interesting. It probably would have meant buying the F15C and E versions for the roles fulfilled by the Tornado.

 

[Lost property]

We scrapped the TSR-2 in 1965, the successor for the strike role was the Tornado introduced in 1979.

As well as the military seeming to be utterly incompetent at purchasing, (though the UK is not alone, the US military also appears to suffer from an inability to get as many units as planned when the budget was set), the manufacturers don't seem to be able to stick to a price. Where else would it be acceptable to bid that you can supply 21 aircraft for £2bn in 7 years, then after 14 years and £3.8bn have failed to produce a single working plane?

To be fair, it isn't entirely down to the military when it comes to purchasing. The M.o.D Procurement section has a lot to answer for as has been well documented over the years, although they did get th compo rations tin can opener right, plus certain defence manufacturers are also well known for costs escalations.

Pulling the plug on the MRA4 was a sensible move. The aircraft, and the programme, was beset with problems and the costs were mounting. Unfortunately, this also led to the closure of Woodford, now just another Cheshire housing estate.

Given the upgrade of the Jag, the GR3 is a vastly different and improved aircraft, the sudden cessation of Jag operations has never been fully explained.

And if anybody wants to buy a C130-J, the RAF are currently disposing of some.

 

[DerekC]

I recall reading an article in the technical press in the 1970s (I think) which projected naval cost trends into the future. It predicted that in fifty years or so we would only be able to afford one first rate warship. It would be absolutely amazing, with all sorts of capabilities then undreamed of, but just one. It was wrong, but not too far off! The hugely escalating cost of weapons systems is clearly a factor in some of the capability gaps the OP highlights. That seems to leave a lot of gaps for a kind of asymmetric warfare. As I recall, in 1982 the Argentinians did quite a lot of damage with their Skyhawks with 500lb bombs (quite apart from attacks by Daggers and Mirages).

 

[Gloster]

I recall reading an article in the technical press in the 1970s (I think) which projected naval cost trends into the future. It predicted that in fifty years or so we would only be able to afford one first rate warship. It would be absolutely amazing, with all sorts of capabilities then undreamed of, but just one. It was wrong, but not too far off! The hugely escalating cost of weapons systems is clearly a factor in some of the capability gaps the OP highlights. That seems to leave a lot of gaps for a kind of asymmetric warfare. As I recall, in 1982 the Argentinians did quite a lot of damage with their Skyhawks with 500lb bombs (quite apart from attacks by Daggers and Mirages).

And the General Belgrano was sunk by Mark VIII** torpedoes introduced in World War II.

 

[Yew]

Two excellent aircraft carriers that should have been three (and we spent enough to build three due to Treasury induced slowdowns to deliver an in year budget friendly expenditure profile at the expense of long term cost increase). Seven excellent Astute class attack submarines down from the twelve SSNs it was determined were needed in the late 90s/early 00s. Six excellent Type 45 air defence destroyers rather than the twelve we originally supposed to get. Eight Type 26 frigates rather than the thirteen we should get. The RAF/Royal Navy were supposed to get 138 F-35Bs (the B variant is actually pretty damn good, especially in comparison to a Harrier) but at the moment only 48 have been ordered and expectation is we might get to 60 or 80 odd). Right aircraft. Not enough of it.

The worst thing is that development costs stay broadly constant. As an example, a fleet of 12 Type 45's would cost less than twice the cost of our current fleet of 6, and furthermore brings the per-unit price down to a point where it can be compeitive on the international market

Looking at the F35, a high-spec stealth fighter is less expensive than the most budget version of a Saab Vigen, simply due to the economies of scale and division of the development costs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2022 ==

I recall reading an article in the technical press in the 1970s (I think) which projected naval cost trends into the future. It predicted that in fifty years or so we would only be able to afford one first rate warship. It would be absolutely amazing, with all sorts of capabilities then undreamed of, but just one. It was wrong, but not too far off! The hugely escalating cost of weapons systems is clearly a factor in some of the capability gaps the OP highlights. That seems to leave a lot of gaps for a kind of asymmetric warfare. As I recall, in 1982 the Argentinians did quite a lot of damage with their Skyhawks with 500lb bombs (quite apart from attacks by Daggers and Mirages).

I do wonder if we're going too hard into say, top of the range anti aircraft missiles. They're excellent, until you empty your VLS Cells. Whereas say, a radar-guided anti aircraft gun may not be as capable, but it can keep going to for longer and be replenished at sea.

 

[Spamcan81]

You could argue the biggest loss was the humble Fairey Gannet. Without this even the Phantoms would have been far less capable when it comes to knowing who was roughly where. Their longer range weapons simply not as effective without decent AEW.

In the event, the Harriers were better suited to the close in dogfight type scenarios than the Phantoms ever were. However the fact it got to that stage was against everything that modern warfare strategy was heading to.

Agree wholeheartedly about the Gannet. Could never have operated from the smaller carriers we had of course. Same goes for the F-4. Both needed a larger carrier.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2022 ==

We scrapped the TSR-2 in 1965, the successor for the strike role was the Tornado introduced in 1979.

As well as the military seeming to be utterly incompetent at purchasing, (though the UK is not alone, the US military also appears to suffer from an inability to get as many units as planned when the budget was set), the manufacturers don't seem to be able to stick to a price. Where else would it be acceptable to bid that you can supply 21 aircraft for £2bn in 7 years, then after 14 years and £3.8bn have failed to produce a single working plane?

The TSR2 gap was filled by ordering the Bucanneer and the Phantom for the RAF. The Tornado replaced the Buccaneer as well as some Vulcan and Jaguar squadrons - the Jaguars having replaced the Phantom in the ground attack role. Still a big mistake to cancel TSR2 though.

 

[GS250]

The TSR2 gap was filled by ordering the Bucanneer and the Phantom for the RAF. The Tornado replaced the Buccaneer as well as some Vulcan and Jaguar squadrons - the Jaguars having replaced the Phantom in the ground attack role. Still a big mistake to cancel TSR2 though.

Agreed. The demoralising effect this had on the UK manufacturing industry set a trend that proved to be contagious.

Also found the sudden withdrawal of the Jaguar fleet rather puzzling. A very tight knit and capable package that proved itself in GW1.

 

[DarloRich]

And the General Belgrano was sunk by Mark VIII** torpedoes introduced in World War II.

fired by a state of the art, nuclear powered, hunter killer!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Nov 2022 ==

Also found the sudden withdrawal of the Jaguar fleet rather puzzling.

coin and the availability thereof is the reason this plane was dropped. No conspiracy.

 

[ainsworth74]

I am not sure if the Class 45 destroyers should be described as ‘excellent’. In February this year all six were in harbour or dock: only one could honestly be described as being for routine rotational reasons.

Yes to be fair the T45s have not been without problems around their propulsion system. Though a lot of that tracks back to cost savings made at the design stage (reduced redundancy in the power plants meaning that failure are more likely to be catastrophic) and also by perhaps edging to close to cutting edge rather than incremental development (T45s are fully electric in that neither the gas turbines nor diesel generators are connected to the propeller shafts instead they power electric engines which was a first in the Royal Navy). It is perhaps worth nothing that, absent a freak one-off with Prince of Wales, the same sort of system has worked very well on the Queen Elizabeth's. There's risks in trying to innovate rather than achieve incremental improvements.

In any event though there is a programme currently underway which should see the power plant issues with all six resolved in the coming years. So perhaps excellent was a bit of a strong modifier but they were the right ship for the Royal Navy and we didn't buy enough of them.

The F35 order is something of a bone of contention though. Ordering F35b for both Air Force and Navy probably another compromise. Ok, so the F35b probably okay for the the Navy as its clear we don't like those pesky catapults in the UK. Its far more capable than the FA2 Harriers and in spite of fanboy nonsense, is a lethal piece of kit. However the RAF could have done with the A version really. Greater range and greater payload. A proper replacement for the Tornado GR4. Again though...its about numbers and we simply don't have enough F35s at present.

Hmm yes and no. I imagine the RAF would be happier with the A variant as then they wouldn't ever have to worry about the Royal Navy wanting to play with them but F-35 is the Harrier replacement and both the RAF and Royal Navy were Harrier operators indeed in later years they formed a joint force (which fed into the strucutre of the F-35 force we have now). Only having to worry about one type of F-35 of course also simplifies things and the reality is that the B is so much more capable than either the ground attack or air defence versions of the Harrier its not even close.

In reality the only people who are probably justifiably concerned by what they're getting are the US Navy and US Air Force (the US Marines being happy with their Bs for the same reasons we would be, it's so much better than a Harrier). Pretty much everyone else who operated Harriers (or probably F-16s) who is getting some version of a F-35 is getting such a step up in capability it's not even funny.

As a replacement for the Tornado GR4s the A would only ever really be a compromise candidate and is again a reflection of reduced defence budgets. More properly the F-35 is probably closer to a Jaguar replacement than it is a Tornado. The UK probably actually needs three fast jets fleets. Typhoons for air defence with a bit of ground attack on the side, the F-35Bs for the Royal Navy and a modern Tornado like strike bomber for the RAF to deliver bombs and ground attack missiles where needed.

But we are where we are and just having more Typhoons and F-35Bs would go a long way to addressing the RAF and RN issues.

The worst thing is that development costs stay broadly constant. As an example, a fleet of 12 Type 45's would cost less than twice the cost of our current fleet of 6, and furthermore brings the per-unit price down to a point where it can be compeitive on the international market

Looking at the F35, a high-spec stealth fighter is less expensive than the most budget version of a Saab Vigen, simply due to the economies of scale and division of the development costs.

Oh absolutely. I always think the B-2 stealth bomber is a good example of this. They ended up costing over $2bn per aircraft but around $1bn of that was the development costs which were originally intended to be spread over 100 aircraft but ended up being over 21 meaning they go from looking very expensive (though for an unparalleled capability) to outragouesly expensive.