Armed Forces Get £30bn for New Equipment in Defence Budget

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Brick, Jul 16, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hhmm. Well on the face of it this seems to be fairly okay, which is what is making me exceedingly suspicious about the whole thing. It all just seems a little too good. Since I know very little about this end of things, anyone with some knowledge care to chime in? Exactly how are we going to end up getting screwed by this? :)
     
  2. Hey I can be bribed with two aircraft carriers! But no mention of the aircraft to go on them... or the rest of the Astute Class Submaries.
     
  3. its all just spin. if there was an increase in defence budget they would say so. I really like the way they talk about the 6 type 45s as if they are a great new aquisition. the government agreed with the admiralty to aquire 8 in return for decommisioning other boats. this 'jam tomorrow' was renaiged on by the government.

    Ski.
     
  4. Not one penny of that £30bn is new money. That only surprise is that there aren't more cuts (yet).
     
  5. But there are cuts, Type 45 has been set at 6 not 8, so that's the RN escort fleet down from 25 to 23.
     
  6. I agree, a mixed bag indeed. The go-ahead on the carriers is more than welcome. I hope that means that the wrangles with the US over JSF may come to an end sooner rather than later.

    The type 45's being chopped to 6 was to be expected, the Admiralty probably had to give them up to secure the cash for the carriers.

    I too would like to see definite numbers for the Astute class submarines, as the RN will need as many hulls as possible once the older SSN's start coming to the end of their lives.

    FRES - hmmm. It's nice to see a Minister being emphatic about in service dates and BAE admitting that they will have to go abroad for the base vehicle. Hopefully that means we will get something which has been proven on operations and in which the inevitible 'teething problems' have been solved. There are plenty of candidates on the market. I'm not going to make suggestions as there are others who are more familiar with the relative merits of individual vehicles than I am. At least it means waving goodbye to Saxon, which has got to be a good thing IMHO.

    What does worry me is that there is nothing mentioned in the article for the RAF. There are three areas that I was expecting to be addressed.

    Firstly, air transport. We need more C130's, or whatever airbus equivalent is going to be available. We've recently lost several of our existing C130 fleet on operations and to my knowledge (I stand by to be corrected) they've not been replaced. There has also been specualtion that we were going to buy 2 more C-17's. No mention of that either.

    Secondly. Replacements for the Tristars etc. We all know how old they are and just how stretched the Squadrons at BZ are by the current operational cycle. There must be something off the shelf available. This is a crucial deficiency.

    Thirdly, Nimrod. Are there going to be upgrades and/or replacements for the in service airframes?

    Procurement and Defence spending are not my area of expertise, being WAY down the food chain as I am. However, those are my concerns based on that article. I may be pleasantly surprised by what is actucally annonunced by part time Des Brown. Let's wait and see!
     
  7. Also, seems to be an intimation that BAe have already been awarded the contract for FRES - have I missed a press release? Please don't crucify me if I have!
     
  8. I thought that Fres was down to competition between three companies and BAe had not made the cut - or have I got it mixed up with another purchase?
     
  9. It does read a bit like that doesn't it?
     
  10. FRES is flawed anyway from what I read - came on the back of the US - get there quickly with a light fleet of vehicles which are airtransportable.

    Pre-dates Iraq - bottom line is we are now procuring Mastiff and Bulldog and we plus the media ain't gonna accept vehicles in the current operating environment that don't provide sufficient protection. In some ways the protracted nature of defence procurement may have saved us from an inappropriate vehicle fleet.
     
  11. Viking is airmobile. Not perfect, but use it for the airmobile bit until the heavy stuff can arrive. That way you don't have to spend a fortune trying to make FRES airmobile.
     
  12. Seeing as the RN has had to put up with many cuts surely 6 type 45s was expected, although undesirable. Echo comment. re planes to go on the two carriers!
    Invicta: doesn't Nimrod "2000" or whatever it's called have a due in service date reasonably soon?
    Does that mean the Panther thing isn't anything to do with FRES?
    Perhaps if someone makes an announcement than another £30bn is going to be made available, and actually turns up, then we can break open a couple of crates?
     
  13. 30 billion to spend on kit...and with resource accounting, you can expect us to get 5 billion's worth and spend the rest bribing the Treasury to let us keep it.
     
  14. But that is why FRES is flawed - we ain't going anywhere in a hurry - it was a decision made on the back of the US saying - we must have more mobility (like a lot of our doctrine now - if the yanks do it so must we). To persist with the FRES concept - it will be a nightmare - the A400 (if it ever flies) will turn out to be a crock - bearing in mind we could probably buy more C-17 (at a cheaper rate than A-400) and actually transport a heavy armoured vehicle in each.

    Given that we need to have confidence in our equipment, the public/press demands that our equipment can resist the threats that are out there - hence the purchase of Mastiff and issue of Bulldog (neither of which will fit in an A-400 in a million years - but probably will in a C-17 - which we ain't going to buy more of) we come back to FRES being a load of w&nk.

    Airtransportability is not going to govern the wars that we are currently fighting or are likely to fight in the near term - we are embroiled in two conflicts which are - depending on your interpretation - insurgencies/civil wars. The key to these conflicts is the ability to win the population by pouring sufficient resources in and deploying them in such a way that the population feels that safe enough that they can support the security forces. This is a protracted process. These conflicts ain't going away fast so why do we need to rush kit out there - also was TELIC delayed because kit had to move by sea - no not at all.

    Agree that Viking has performed very well - was in the 'Stan until Apr and from what I saw they came out very well in a number of engagments.
     
  15. Whilst eight 45s would undoubtedly be better than just six are the extra two that vital? As I understand it the main job of these things is to look after aircraft carriers in a task force along with operating independently on other jobs. Two 45s per carrier to look after the air defence and some 23s for the anti-submarine warfare work still leaves two left for doing other things or looking after other ships in the task force like the LPHs or LPDs. Unless I'm getting the wrong end of the large vaguely cylindrical woody thing.