UK Defence Review Part II

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 10,160

The old thread is here.

Have fun....... :)

Original post

Member for

18 years 10 months

Posts: 963

So Leuchars closing?, would that mean all the Typhoons at 1 base (Coningsby?) or have a second base elsewhere?, any thoughts/rumours/news?

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 902

So Leuchars closing?, would that mean all the Typhoons at 1 base (Coningsby?) or have a second base elsewhere?, any thoughts/rumours/news?

The Scotlands bases are all at risk.
If Nimrod goes, it is KInloss.
If Tornado goes, it is Lossiemouth.
Also Leuchars has been pointed at... But i'm hoping it is only a bad-informed rumor. With the russian bombers causing more scrambles in the last months that in any other period from when the Cold War "ended", i don't think it is the moment to close the base down and have Typhoons scrambling from further south. It simply wouldn't work.
Lossiemouth's closure could be temporary, and the base return to activity when the F35 comes (plans were to base the F35 there) or Leuchars can be expanded and keep Typhoon groups and F35 as well, depending on budget advantages.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 10,647

The Scotlands bases are all at risk.

If Tornado goes, it is Lossiemouth.

Is that right, one of the reasons for chopping St Mawgan was because JSF is going to Lossiemouth?
My feeling is that Lossie will be the lone survivor.

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 594

With the Scottish parlimentary elections coming up in May, and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats already minority parties at Holyrood. Would the UK Government dare shut down more than one base and alienate themselves even further in Scotland?

For what it's worth I feel that the Tonkas then F35s ahould see Lossie pretty safe.

A fortune just been spent "Typhoonizing" Leuchars for the the Northern QRA will see it survive.

I think Kinloss is the one to go with the Nimrods going to Waddington. Perhaps with the outside hope of part (no chance of all) of it being kept under MOD ownership and allowed to overgrow to provide auster airfield simulations close to the home base of the F35.

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 1,684

With the Scottish parlimentary elections coming up in May, and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats already minority parties at Holyrood. Would the UK Government dare shut down more than one base and alienate themselves even further in Scotland?

For what it's worth I feel that the Tonkas then F35s ahould see Lossie pretty safe.

A fortune just been spent "Typhoonizing" Leuchars for the the Northern QRA will see it survive.

I think Kinloss is the one to go with the Nimrods going to Waddington. Perhaps with the outside hope of part (no chance of all) of it being kept under MOD ownership and allowed to overgrow to provide auster airfield simulations close to the home base of the F35.


Will the Scottish parliamentary elections have any real impact on current UK defence spending decisions when the SNP are at loggerheads about anything related to defence spending?
I agree Kinloss may be the current loser and from what I heard at the weekend Leuchars is to get 3 squadrons of Typhoons - see also URL http://www.raf.mod.uk/RAFleuchars/ and quoting " In 2010 RAF Leuchars will become the new home of No 6 Sqn, the first of 3 Typhoon Sqns that are planned to be based here"

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 272

With the Scottish parlimentary elections coming up in May, and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats already minority parties at Holyrood. Would the UK Government dare shut down more than one base and alienate themselves even further in Scotland?

That's part of the reason i've always thought CVF was fairly safe (or at least HMS QE) - politics! Can you really see the nasty party killing shipbuilding on the Clyde?

Not that defence procurement should come down to nationalistic politics, Angus Robertson winds me up with his hypocritical rants.

Member for

16 years 2 months

Posts: 475

Killing the Carriers not only kills shipbuilding on the clyde, it kills almost every yard in the UK

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 902

Not to talk about officially wasting billions and shying away from the only piece of stategic planning that truly had sense.
If one thing said in all these years of neclet of the armed forces was true, it was that the carriers are the cornerstone of the defence capability of the UK. No matter the kind of war or fighting-"peacetime" we face, the carriers will always be handy and busy.

And whatever prevents politicians from replaying the stupid decisions of the 1960 and 1981, has my blessing. Be it jobs to protect or whatever, if they restrain political stupidity, they are a blessing for real.

Member for

15 years 7 months

Posts: 228

Killing the Carriers not only kills shipbuilding on the clyde, it kills almost every yard in the UK

It also kills any idea we have of being anything other than a puppet of Washington, or more alarmingly, Brussels.

To quote myself from the old thread:

If only the force levels and procurements of the SDR in 1998 had been maintained....

Five RAF air defence sqaudrons
21 Nimrod MRA4
40 Infantry battalions
32 frigates/destroyers
10 SSNs
Sea Harrier kept in service until CVF/JCA arrives (very tempting to slip in this link to the PPRuNe Sea Jet thread*)
CVF in service in 2012 (and 2015)

Bah...

* Also mentions frigate/destroyer and submarine cuts.

What is there to cut? What isn't busy in one way or another? Can we say what will will or won't need in five or ten years time?

Member for

15 years 9 months

Posts: 1,684

Interesting - GB as an island - is it to be a Washington puppet or embrace Europe?

Interesting what comes out in these threads. Washington puppet or cuddle Europe ?
Is the island of GB to relinquish it's strength as a self protecting island (an island's greatest strength must be in it's defence and health of it's people - my opinion) ?
On the other hand can we leave nuclear weapons decisions (and the actual pressing of the 'button') purely to outside nations (USA and Europe) ?
My opinion again - the UK's stabler hand on the 'shared nuke button' is necessary, therefore GB must continue with development and support of nuclear weaponry.
A move towards all European armed forces may be something that has to be considered for the future - this is the tough one for any island race and it's government to contend with.
It may mean embracing Europe and ignoring the natural geographical divide of the seas between GB and mainland Europe.
The economic equation is stark on this one - unemployment, health, education and managing escalating crime sit heavy on the scales opposite spending in each EU nation on it's individual armed forces.
No one wishes to see the excellent standards set by the British armed forces diluted but maybe they can uplift the other European forces by their excellent example and discipline.

Member for

18 years 8 months

Posts: 338

Regarding Scotish bases, form the stroies I have heard Kinloss is the main loss with the Nimrod MRA4 being classified as an ISTAR asset and moving to Waddington, Leuchars is safe as it will be the only other base to house the Typhoon after Conningsby. As for Lossiemouth, I have heard that as the base ofr the Carrier platform and with the reduction in Tornado numbers it will be mothballed as a flying station whilst work is do to prepare it for its new arrivals in 6 or seven years.

As a result Marham could become the home of the Tornado with the OCU supplimenting the existing 4 squadrons or replacing one. I have a feeling also that the Harrier force will become a single large unit of around 20 airframes when based back at Wittering, which will close when Lossiemouth reopens. The remaining C-130Ks will go very quickly allowing Lynham to close early as already planned. If the transfer of the Merlins to the RN goes ahead Benson will obviously go.

In the training world I can see training becoming concentrated at Valley, especially with the reduction in Hawk numbers meaning Linton could close and finally the MoD passing all support to the Hawks at FRADU to the private sector.

This will leave the RAF with 7 frontline flying station, and 1 or 2 training units if Navigation and Multi engine stay at Cranwell

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 902

Hope you are right, since this plan you outlined isn't that bad. Certainly better than most scenarios had been depicted in doom and gloom colours lately.
Of course... The Nimrods would be a little bit out of area, being based at Waddington, far more distant from their normal area of patrol, but i guess this is little trouble compared to losing them altogether and be left without ocean patrol and anti-submarine recon.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 10,647

Certainly better than most scenarios had been depicted in doom and gloom colours lately.

Actually it looks like only you predicted that, or picked up on stories saying as such.
Basing the Nimrod at Waddo won't bring any lesser service than basing it at Kinloss, they operate south and west aswel! Transit speed and increased engine efficiency also helps the MR.4 in this respect.

The interesting question to me is just how much will the RAF return to ASW and SAR cover? The Nimrod had become an overland surveilance type, a role which other aircraft types currently fulfill.

Re LordJims point about concentrating fast jet training with the Hawks at Valley, that is the official plan.

Member for

13 years 8 months

Posts: 902

Actually it looks like only you predicted that, or picked up on stories saying as such.

The reports of RAF offering to scrap Nimrod entirely were on the news in the last week. If you missed them, better for you. It wasn't a pleasant read.

And the Nimrods are going to keep patroling the sea most of the time. The raf may just send out one to Afghanistan (if there will still be someone in there by that time) to use as ISTAR asset as it did with the MR2 already.
But the change of base does not means the Nimrod magically changes: it is still fitted with ASW sensors mainly, and i don't see, eventual deployment to Herrick aside, what the hell they could do on land.
When they enter service, they'll resume flying over the sea.

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 10,647

I was talking about your base closures forecast.

MR.4 has been on and off since inception, many arguments for and against it.
However MR.2 was doing increasingly more overland work in its last decade and a half of service, and this feels like the way that the RAF are increasingly utilising their aircraft.

Apart from your hopes and fears, it would be good to know exactly what the thinking is for future RAF ASW cover?
If is ASW and SAR cover is that important now, what are we covering it with?

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 517

Recently used for SAR top cover:

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/uk/cg/pics/0626324.jpg

Member for

19 years 1 month

Posts: 653

Not exactly up to the capabilities of a 'Rod or a C130 with the kit down the back one suspects.

Member for

14 years 8 months

Posts: 387

Not exactly up to the capabilities of a 'Rod or a C130 with the kit down the back one suspects.

but none the less good enough for on scene comms and coordination. Just use these and only deploy large a/c on large ops.

Regarding pagen and tiger overland work was the original role of the 'rod technically recce so they are designed with this sort of stuff in mind.

Please can we just put everything into a CAD program and build some new builds even with the lack of money!!!

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 517

Maybe they should get half-a-dozen of these:

http://www.defencetalk.com/wp-content/themes/dtstyle/scripts/timthumb.php?src=/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/C295-torpedo-launch.jpg&w=390&h=260&zc=0

Total cost would be less than the cost of one MRA4.

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 70

Offering to scrap MRA4 is widely seen as a bluff. The capital is spent for the most part so it would only save operating costs. It would introduce a whole new set of capability gaps by getting rid of it, and the navy will more than likely want to retain it as well so it has the backing of two services not just one.