RAF to shrink to pre-1914 levels...

[Stratofreighter]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... evels.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Back in 1914 there was no Royal Air Force yet, just a Royal Flying Corps. And while the details below are not exactly new, they are quite shocking...

RAF to shrink to World War One levels

The RAF will shrink to its smallest size since the First World War, under unprecedented cuts being proposed at the Ministry of Defence.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Published: 10:22PM BST 06 Aug 2010

The RAF will shrink to its smallest size since the First World War, under unprecedented cuts being proposed at the Ministry of Defence.

In the most significant changes to Britain’s defences since the post-Suez review of 1957, ministers and officials plan to scrap large parts of the Armed Forces.

The Services will lose up to 16,000 personnel, hundreds of tanks, scores of fighter jets and half a dozen ships, under detailed proposals passed to The Daily Telegraph.

But the RAF will bear the brunt of the planned cuts. The Air Force will lose 7,000 airmen – almost one sixth of its total staff – and 295 aircraft.
The cuts will leave the Force with fewer than 200 fighter planes for the first time since 1914.

In addition, the Navy will lose two submarines, three amphibious ships and more than 100 senior officers, along with 2,000 sailors and marines.

The Army faces a 40 per cent cut to its fleet of 9,700 armoured vehicles and the loss of a 5,000-strong brigade of troops.

The Telegraph has also learnt that the “black hole” in MoD finances, caused by orders which have been made but cannot be paid for, is approaching £72  billion over the next decade – double the amount previously suggested.

While the Strategic Defence and Security Review is yet to be finalised, officials have drawn up a series of likely options to meet cuts of 10 to 20 per cent demanded by the Treasury.

By the end of this month the Defence Strategy Group, comprising ministers and military chiefs, will be presented with a number of recommendations that they will refine and pass to the National Security Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, in September.

In October, after agreement with the Treasury, an announcement will be made in Parliament on precisely what cuts the Forces face as part of the comprehensive spending review of Whitehall budgets.

If implemented, the cuts will mean that Britain will almost certainly depart the world stage as a major military power and become what military chiefs call a “medium-scale player”.

The proposed cuts – which are certain to face a critical reception from the public – are being considered without resolving the question of who pays for the Trident replacement.

The MoD hopes that once voters realise the scale of the cuts to the Armed Forces, George Osborne, the Chancellor, may spare some parts of the military. The plans will lead to the RAF losing its status as the fifth biggest air force in the world.

The entire force of 120 GR4 Tornado fighter-bombers looks destined for the scrap heap to save £7.5 billion over the next five years.
The Tornado was supposed to be in service until 2025, but with a major overhaul due in the next five years costing £10 million for each aircraft, it is now under threat.

The cut will mean job losses as RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Marham totalling almost 5,000 personnel.

Under the plans, the number of Eurofighter Typhoons is likely to be reduced further from 160 to 107 planes based at a single RAF airfield to save £1  billion.
The entire fleet of 36 Hercules transport aircraft, the workhorse in Iraq and Afghanistan, is to be phased out and replaced by an order of 22 new A400M planes.

The £3.6 billion project for nine Nimrod MR4 reconnaissance aircraft is also vulnerable, along with a number of other surveillance planes.

The proposals include a swathe of cuts to the Army’s armoured regiments with the loss of Challenger 2 tanks, AS90 guns and Warrior armoured vehicles.

While the Army is likely to lose a few thousand soldiers in the coming year, reducing its numbers to about 100,000, it is braced to lose an entire brigade of about 5,000 when combat troops withdraw from Afghanistan in 2015.
It is understood that 7 Armoured Brigade or 20 Armoured Brigade, both based in Germany, are the most vulnerable.

Infantry battalions will be increased from about 600 troops to 750 as a lesson from Afghanistan has been the loss of combat effectiveness through leave and casualties, according to the plans.

The Royal Marines also face coming under direct Army control from Navy command and the possibility of being grouped into a “super elite” unit alongside two Parachute Regiment battalions.

A senior Whitehall source said: “These are not Tory cuts, these are Labour cuts as a result of their irresponsible overspending.
However, a lot of this comes down to how much political appetite there is to do this.”

An MoD spokesman said: “The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded.”

[jp 74]

Not a good development, there will hardley an airforce left.
Marines joining the army, imagine that!

[Arjan]

Do I hear Medvedev and Poeting laughin???

[aviodromefriend]

Do I hear Medvedev and Poeting laughin???

Guess they already stopped seeing the UK as a major armed force to be reckoned with quite some years ago. (And they might be too right in doing so.)

[ehusmann]

Do I hear Medvedev and Poeting laughin???

I doubt that, the Chinese maybe, but also the Russians don´t exactly have the armed forces anymore they once had.

But all this is not very remarkable. One can argue that Britain is has less direct threads than it ever had during the last century. The RAF as it still is today is a relic from the cold war. The threads of those days are gone. Just like in the Netherlands, and almost any other country in Europe, they pick their fights. So why keep a strong ´deterrent´ force?
The only way for Europe to stay a super power is to join, but really join. Create one European integrated armed force. UK, France, Germany, they can´t all compete with the true big countries. A fantasy maybe, but it is the only option.

Erwin

[Arjan]

They should allready have such a force. It's called NATO! But that could indeed use some modernization as well. It's true, the RAF is a cold war relic. But cutting it isn't actually modernizing and rebuilding it.
The Russians have been through this phase before and yes indeed, they are a far cry from what they have been in numbers but they are actually growing and modernizing allready. And they sure can't meet the present numbers of the western forces, but if these forces scale down present numbers it will meet again.
And let's face it, the cold war was one of the most peaceful times in history. Now, we are fighting two wars and there are many potential war scares in the world. And probably more to come. I believe it is just very wrong to downsize on such an enormous scale and lose all those preciously learned and built experience.

[Le Addeur noir]

Do I hear Medvedev and Poeting laughin???

Guess they already stopped seeing the UK as a major armed force to be reckoned with quite some years ago. (And they might be too right in doing so.)

Without a doubt.

In EVERY other region of the world other than Europe,"defence" spending is being increased.China increses military spending by some 15% each year.

In the years/decades to come when China dominates the Pacific and Indian Oceans,North Korea and Burma(not to mention Iran) have declared nuclear weapons and Russia has re-armed,Europe may come to regret it's defence cuts since the 1960s.Remember what happened in 1940?.

There are many of communist persuasion within the former ruling Labour Party in Britain who have strove to denude Britain of her Armed Forces since the end of the Second World War.Through causing the near collapse of the British economy during their 13 years of corrupt rule,they have all but suceeded.

[SquAdmin]

And let's face it, the cold war was one of the most peaceful times in history.

We're getting slightly off-topic now, but I can't resist to react. I doubt if it's true that the cold war was a peaceful period. In fact, there were plenty of wars going on, but the big difference was that WE didn't participate. Now that the cold war is over, we're shifting our focus, maybe just to have a new one or because we finally have our hands free of the big red threat.

[evhest]

And let's face it, the cold war was one of the most peaceful times in history.

I think you are underestimating how close east and west came to total annihilation, particulary in de sixties and early eighties.

[Bassie76]

One MP now also suggests to disband the 'Red Arrows'.
Where is this going to end........

http://news.carrentals.co.uk/mp-calls-t ... 13059.html

[Arjan]

And let's face it, the cold war was one of the most peaceful times in history.

I think you are underestimating how close east and west came to total annihilation, particulary in de sixties and early eighties.

I think you are underestimating how the threat of total annihilation brought that peace!
And I didn't say it was peaceful and that there were no wars!
But let’s say that the reality of any of our forces being actually involved of a war (not so much a war being a direct threat to our territory) has increased dramatically! The fact we are already fighting our current wars on the edge of our capabilities and the fact that the future will almost very likely bring more wars to come it is very unsafe to further cut down the forces.
On the other hand, it is fair to say that money can be spend in better or more efficient way. Modernization is a good thing! But it is not the question how they are going to spend it differently, the question is not to spend it at all at Defense.

[K-9]

With so many european countries working together more and more.... It would make sense to create one "hugh" air force, army and navy. ( keep on dreaming... )

Perhaps Britain has finally seen, there is no need to be involved in world policing, such as the USA does.
If each country will just keep enough assets to protect their own borders, it's fine. And yes, one can ask how many assets you need for that... Because if Russia, China, Iran and others attack all at the same time... On the other hand with current (nuclear)rockets, who needs a large defence force ? Things can be "solved" rather easily.

We can better spend money on alternative fuels, so that we do not need to go and fight in the middle east, in order to keep the supply of feul safe...
And for crying out loud, move away from Afghanistan, it costs a lot of lives and money than can be spend better. Afghanisatan is a never ending story, as with Israël, Iran and so on...

Those wonderfull days are over, resources shrink and we just have to deal with that.

[SquAdmin]

Perhaps Britain has finally seen, there is no need to be involved in world policing, such as the USA does.

Britain didn't choose to change its policies, it was forced by a serious lack of money...

[ehusmann]

But let’s say that the reality of any of our forces being actually involved of a war (not so much a war being a direct threat to our territory) has increased dramatically! The fact we are already fighting our current wars on the edge of our capabilities and the fact that the future will almost very likely bring more wars to come it is very unsafe to further cut down the forces.

But keep in mind that for the last 20 years, we have picked our fights. We have never been drawn into any wars, we choose to fight the wars. So with a smaller force you just pick less fights. So, yes, we might end up in wars more often, but the chances of getting into wars are not higher.
This counts for almost all of the western countries, including the US, certainly including Britain.

Erwin

[Wildpicture]

but the chances of getting into wars are not higher.

That remains to be seen. In the coming years the world population will grow fast. That and the fact that newly developping countries (China, India) are very rapidly increasing their consumption levels, increases the demand for natural resources. Competition for natural resources (not just oil) may lead to conflicts. And many countries which had old fashion style military forces in the past have updated to modern standards. All this may increase the risk of conflicts over resources which could lead to military activities.