S.D.S.R 2015

[MRTT]

Thought I would start the thread for the upcoming S.D.S.R as it will probably be released this week.

[CJS]

[?] Defense Spending Review?

[138EAW]

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Not seen a specific date mentioned for the review to be published apart from by the end of 2015?

[Brevet Cable]

SDSR ?
The Army is likely to get stuffed big-time ( more than they already have been ) -- further reduction in Regular forces ( despite the Reserves scheme failing to take up the current shortfall ) and a further degradation of armoured units ( tanks )......it would also appear that someone at HMG/MOD thinks that a restructuring along the lines of the American Army's 'Pentomic' system is a good idea , despite the Americans binning it after about 4 years.

Expect the Navy to be stuffed with regards the Type 26 Frigate which have already seen specification changes leading to a capability degradation ( as with the Type 45 Destroyer , lots of 'fitted for not with' ) including using refurbished 5" Mk.42-Mod 2 main guns instead of new Mk.42-Mod 4 ones & having a 33% lower shell storage capacity.
Presumably further efforts to increase recruitment , given the massive shortfall they already have & the even larger shortfall once the first new Carrier comes into service.

RAF -- possibly the only winners , if only because it would be difficult to cut their capability much further.
Be interesting to see if - following the binning of the RAF's UK-based SAR capability - they look at privatising other aspects ( RAF Mountain Rescue , basic flight training , etc. ) , or if they decide to transfer any more of the RAF's helicopter capability to the AAC & RN.
Given the reduction in RAF facilities both here and abroad , I wonder if they've also considered transferring the RAF Regt. to Army command ?

[davidjones533]

.

[frank]

The Sunday Times had an article on 20th Sept that claimed the Govt had accepted that the RAF had become too thinly stretched and number of fast jet squadrons would double. It claimed that the Tornado' Squadron's were given a reprieve and the Typhoon squadron numbers would be increased. This didn't imply new Typhoon purchases merely keeping the early tranches in service.

[F4 Flyer]

This review wil be intresting, just seen a snippet in a scottish newsaper suggesting Leuchars could re open and be host to the P-8 posidon fleet ?

[Red Dragon]

This review wil be intresting, just seen a snippet in a scottish newsaper suggesting Leuchars could re open and be host to the P-8 posidon fleet ?

Hmm interesting, as I had read the MPA fleet (regardless of type) would be based at Waddington, which is why the runway extension and extra hard standings were being built? However as we have all seen, the MoD/ RAF are experts in spending Millions/ Billions and then writing it off and no one made accountable for the loss!

Reminds me of the Scottish episode of Sir Humphrey Appleby in Yes Minister!

[F4 Flyer]

would make sense to have the P-8,s there, but i dont think leuchars has the infrastructure to host large jets,?

[GertrudetheMerciless]

Is that Leuchars which is now St Andrewsview Barracks? Not a hope of the army giving that up!

[Wes_Howes]

This review wil be intresting, just seen a snippet in a scottish newsaper suggesting Leuchars could re open and be host to the P-8 posidon fleet ?

Hmm interesting, as I had read the MPA fleet (regardless of type) would be based at Waddington, which is why the runway extension and extra hard standings were being built?

I thought this was because Airseeker ( ) struggles to operate safely from the existing runway

[john001]

This review wil be intresting, just seen a snippet in a scottish newsaper suggesting Leuchars could re open and be host to the P-8 posidon fleet ?

Hmm interesting, as I had read the MPA fleet (regardless of type) would be based at Waddington, which is why the runway extension and extra hard standings were being built?

I thought this was because Airseeker ( ) struggles to operate safely from the existing runway

Yes and the additional similar traffic after Mildenhall closes. ( Another reason for no airshow).

[PeterR]

The MPA fleet will likely be based at RAF Waddington, makes sense to have all our ISTAR assets in one place.

[Russ]

This review wil be intresting, just seen a snippet in a scottish newsaper suggesting Leuchars could re open and be host to the P-8 posidon fleet ?

Hmm interesting, as I had read the MPA fleet (regardless of type) would be based at Waddington, which is why the runway extension and extra hard standings were being built?

I thought this was because Airseeker ( ) struggles to operate safely from the existing runway

Not saying that isn't the case, but why is it a problem for a Rivet Joint and not an E-3D? That doesn't make sense to me.

[Wes_Howes]

I don't know and I asked the same question when I was told.

[st24]

I thought this was because Airseeker ( ) struggles to operate safely from the existing runway

Not saying that isn't the case, but why is it a problem for a Rivet Joint and not an E-3D? That doesn't make sense to me.[/quote]

Particularly as the MTOW for both are the same!! Must be USAF SOPs for the '135 - they do like their long runways....

[boff180]

Now due for release end of November according to the Telegraph yesterday. Makes sense as it would coincide with the announcement of up to 40% cuts in budgets for other departments on 25th November.

That said, the same article claimed the F-35 order should be dumped in favor of F-18's for the new carriers forgetting the carriers can't operate them....

[GertrudetheMerciless]

I thought this was because Airseeker ( ) struggles to operate safely from the existing runway

Not saying that isn't the case, but why is it a problem for a Rivet Joint and not an E-3D? That doesn't make sense to me.

Particularly as the MTOW for both are the same!! Must be USAF SOPs for the '135 - they do like their long runways....

Two very different airframes? The 707 and C-135 are different beasts...

[Red Dragon]

Now due for release end of November according to the Telegraph yesterday. Makes sense as it would coincide with the announcement of up to 40% cuts in budgets for other departments on 25th November.

That said, the same article claimed the F-35 order should be dumped in favor of F-18's for the new carriers forgetting the carriers can't operate them....

Well it's bound to happen then as the UK MoD have nailed their colours to the mast regarding the F-35 equipment etc on board the two ships. So the government can happily waste another few 10's of millions converting them back to standard "Cat & Trap" layout (as They should have been all along ) knowing full well that no one will be brought to account for the change and then the blaming game will start.

[Seahornet]

I thought this was because Airseeker ( ) struggles to operate safely from the existing runway

Not saying that isn't the case, but why is it a problem for a Rivet Joint and not an E-3D? That doesn't make sense to me.

Particularly as the MTOW for both are the same!! Must be USAF SOPs for the '135 - they do like their long runways....

Two very different airframes? The 707 and C-135 are different beasts...

Indeed, the E-3D is longer and heavier, with a bigger wing span / area, and more powerful engines - a completely different aircraft.

[capercaillie]

I thought this was because Airseeker ( ) struggles to operate safely from the existing runway

Not saying that isn't the case, but why is it a problem for a Rivet Joint and not an E-3D? That doesn't make sense to me.

Particularly as the MTOW for both are the same!! Must be USAF SOPs for the '135 - they do like their long runways....

Two very different airframes? The 707 and C-135 are different beasts...

Indeed, the E-3D is longer and heavier, with a bigger wing span / area, and more powerful engines - a completely different aircraft.

Very different aircraft yes, although they are both fitted with CFM-56 engines, so only a marginal variation in thrust produced.

[Russ]

Which makes even less sense.

[Seahornet]

Indeed, the E-3D is longer and heavier, with a bigger wing span / area, and more powerful engines - a completely different aircraft.

Very different aircraft yes, although they are both fitted with CFM-56 engines, so only a marginal variation in thrust produced.

More than marginal: 22,000 lbs for the version on the RC-135; 24,000 lbs on the E-3D

Cutting to the chase: At MTOW, the E-3D has a tiny advantage in power-to-weight ratio (0.277 vs 0.273), but it also has a significantly lower wing loading (114 lb/sqft against 133 lb/sqft ). Given the more recent development of the E-3D wing, and its high-lift devices, I'd expect it to easily out-perform the RC-135 in take-off / landing distances.

[capercaillie]

Less than 10% = marginal.

[Seahornet]

Less than 10% = marginal.