The beauty of a thread like this is that it makes it obvious how difficult procurement decisions and priorities are. Everyone has a different opinion, they are all valid and all need to be considered; however, what is missing is the top-level guidance to allow informed decisions to be made.
There is no doubt that all the equipment/capability mentioned previously is important to what we aspire to do, but the problem is with knowing whether or not our aspirations are appropriate. By that I mean are they needed, technologically feasible and affordable.
Need is always subjective and should be defined by a clear statement from Government what effect the MoD must be able to provide in order to support its Foreign & Domestic policies.
Technology moves on, granted, but there must be a balance of simple kit that works when asked (clothing, vehicles, radios ((and arguably SH!!!)) etc) against high-tech kit that is absolutely essential to overcome a potential adversary's capability.
Affordability is, of course, the key to all of this. When I buy a car I can do it 2 ways. I can either; determine what spec of vehicle I require and then see what I can buy with the money (this might lead to me buying something a couple of years older or from the far east, rather than Bavaria), or I can go shopping knowing my budget and balance what it will get me against the less essential items on my wishlist. Presently, the MoD does neither - it walks around with a wishlist of capabilities without a real priority list (that it repeatedly adds to and faffs with) and no real idea of what something should cost and wonders why it gets itself into financial strife.
What is required is a fundamental line in the sand that says - 'MoD, HMG requires you to support policy in this way - please tell me how much it is going to cost and we will decide if it is affordable' or 'MoD, you have this much money, how safe can you keep us?'. With neither clearly defined, the in-fghting, confusion and division within the MoD about what is required will continue to be counter productive and divert more money away from where it is most needed.
I do not argue for or against any capability/platform; rather argue that something has to give and that we should cut capabilities that are nice to have in favour of the essential ones at the top of the non-existant priority list until we match the budget provided. This is unpalatable, definitely, but we must provide to Government a realistic assessment of the effect we can provide with the budget they give us, and we must draw a line in the sand and say 'no more scrimping and saving to deliver more - that is what you funded, that is what you have'. Then we would all know where we stand and be able to move forward.
Not holding my breath...