UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents

[ORAC]

An interesting thought experiment - but when we can’t even afford to buy planned F-35s or E-7s, it’s a bit moot…

Wavell Room:

"This article considers whether the UK should invest in a more substantial long-range strike capability, namely some form of bomber."

https://wavellroom.com/2020/09/10/the-uk-and-long-range-strike/

The UK and Long-Range Strike

As the UK enters the third decade of the 21st century, it is confronted by a strategic system in flux. This is particularly highlighted by the resurgence of great power rivalry, the renewed Russian threat to regional and international security, the shifting global balance of power from the Euro-Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific, the rise of China as a global power, regional instability in the Middle East, and wider geopolitical shifts. This is compounded by the Trump Administration’s approach to foreign policy, particularly it’s attitude towards arms control and reported interest in resuming nuclear testing (https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2020/05/26/live-nuclear-testing-could-resume-in-months-if-needed-official-says/), and the potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

It is likely that defence budgets will come under intense pressure due to the economic impact of the pandemic, however, given the deteriorating geopolitical environment, significant defence cuts may only serve to embolden potential adversaries seeking to change local or, indeed, the international status quo. Moreover, the UK itself is at a critical strategic juncture with the opportunities inherent in its withdrawal from the European Union. Ahead of the forthcoming Integrated Security, Defence and Foreign Policy Review, discussion of the UK’s strategic priorities and balance of capabilities is warranted. In this regard, this article considers whether the UK should invest in a more substantial long-range strike capability, namely some form of bomber.….

[Asturias56]

No real discussion of how it is to be funded, or even how a case can be made to the Govt - never mind the public.

Even post pandemic the medium/long term financial forecasts for the UK show ever increasing expenditures on pensioners, the sick etc. - the money has to come from somewhere but no-one has a clue how it'll be done.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/09/10/royal-air-force-faces-significant-aircraft-shortfalls-report-finds/

Royal Air Force faces significant aircraft shortfalls, report finds

LONDON — British lawmakers say the Royal Air Force now lacks capabilities across combat, air transport and early warning aircraft.

A Ministry of Defence command paper in 2021 ordered cuts to aircraft numbers that are creating a combat air shortfall in jet numbers that will persist into the 2030s, the Parliamentary defence committee said in a report on aviation procurement released Sept. 10.

The committee said the British combat jet fleet now only provides a boutique capability and lacks numerical depth and an inadequate attrition reserve.

“Combat aircraft numbers are already low. The defence command paper cuts will create a combat air capability gap which, on current plans, will persist well into the 2030s. This is unacceptable. The [Ministry of Defence] and RAF must consider as a matter of urgency how they can increase combat air mass in the short term,” said the report…….

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmdfence/178/report.html

Aviation Procurement: Winging it?

This is a House of Commons Committee report, with recommendations to government. The Government has two months to respond.

[Asturias56]

30. The practicalities of operating the joint Lightning Force have created ambiguities about the attribution of the fleet.

Captain (ret’d) Dan Stembridge told us that this created tension between the RAF and the Royal Navy and made it hard to quantify how many aircraft were required: The politics of this is, are the F-35s that we have in the UK carrier-borne air systems that are able to operate on land, or are they land-based systems that are able to operate at sea? Fundamentally, we make the choice to not decide. That drives double accounting over what you are using those systems for. We currently have a Navy that force generates a maritime taskforce. We have an Air Force that generates air systems, and then we place the responsibility for force generating carrier strike to the Navy, but they do not have the levers to be able to effect that, because they do not own the air systems and they don’t own the money and therefore they do not own the capability development or the force generation for it. That creates tension, whether that is intentional or not. It creates tension and it creates question marks over what is enough… Is 72 or 73 enough to deliver carrier strike? It is if you attribute them to do that. If you attribute them to also do other things, it is not enough.

33 Dr Sophy Antrobus made a similar point about over-attribution: All the expectations are on the head of F-35B, and you have a bit of a problem if you assume that it is going to be doing all of the things that we would like it to be doing, at the same time, in one high-end conflict.34

[Asturias56]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/654x224/2023_09_11_084108_08628fa45054194766e916e765c53450fdf568f7.j pg

[Asturias56]

55. Against the weight of this evidence, the MoD nonetheless told us that “a fleet of three Wedgetail aircraft, with improved availability when compared to the Sentry, would provide Defence with the capability it needs and provide the UK’s contribution to NATO”.72 56. Given that the cuts to the fleet were made on cost grounds, we examined the proposed savings in detail. Acquisition costs for the original fleet of five aircraft were estimated at £2.155 billion; the MoD now expects to pay £1.89 billion for three.73 Thus, whilst the fleet size has been slashed by 40%, acquisition costs have reduced by just 12%. The graphic below demonstrates the acquisition cost of each aircraft in the original and revised fleet. As our recent report on MoD procurement noted, the decision to cut the fleet clearly represents extremely poor value for money.74

[Asturias56]

Actually the whole thing is such a damning indictment of the current situation I'm not going to post anymore from it - once you get to trraining you just feel its all too awful :(

[vascodegama]

Nothing new about this-it was known about before contract sign.

[Asturias56]

It's the whole read that is sooo depressing - and the shifty replies from anyone in power.

Not terribly new but its all in on place and it all stinks

[ORAC]

https://x.com/thinkdefence/status/1701988549799661883?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A
​​​​​​​
New: Tobias Ellwood has quit as Defence Select Committee chairman, following reports that he could have been the first ever elected chair to be ousted

[ORAC]

https://x.com/pinstripedline/status/1701902924043960690?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Do raw numbers matter for UK defence?

Pinstripedline blog on the challenges facing policy makers of balancing aspiration with financial reality in affording new equipment to meet the threat.

​​​​​​​https://tinyurl.com/bn2ytwny

[Asturias56]

very interesting..."Individually the parts are still there, but the ability to fuse them together and work in a coordinated manner both within the UK and with allies is rapidly decreasing. With ever fewer new assets entering service, it becomes harder to do everything that was done before.
............................................................ ............................................................ .......................
The UK realistically is facing a tipping point where it cannot do everything it wants to do anymore and its credibility as an ally may suffer. Is it better to step back completely in some areas to focus on being a niche ‘ally of excellence’ in others- for example being clear that the UK will no longer do some activity but instead prioritising others – in military parlance becoming the Supporting Commander rather than the Supported Commander. Could the UK, for example, consciously step back from major land activity, ceding this space to other European militaries who have a more pressing land concern, like Poland, and focus more on air and naval power? This may be politically unpopular but would enable proper resource allocation and investment to future capability rather than spreading ever more thinly."

[NutLoose]

I do sometimes wonder about the calibre of some MP's who ask erm strange questions.

In a recent parliamentary query, Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell raised eyebrows with a question about converting Royal Navy warships from diesel power… to nuclear power.For smaller surface vessels like frigates, the benefits of nuclear power do not outweigh the significant costs and potential environmental concerns. Furthermore, integrating such systems into existing fleet designs would pose significant engineering and logistical challenges.

Rosindell asked the Secretary of State for Defence, “what his Department’s projected spending on nuclear powered surface vessels for the Royal Navy is in the (a) 2023-24, (b) 2024-25 and (c) 2025-26 financial year; and if he will make a statement.”

Not stopping there, he further inquired about the Defence Department’s plans, asking “what his Department’s timeline is for converting the remaining diesel-powered Royal Navy surface fleet to nuclear power.”

In a straightforward response, James Cartlidge, the Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, clarified, “The Royal Navy has never had any surface vessels that are nuclear powered and there is no programme or intention to convert the current fleet to be nuclear powered in future.”

Thus, the notion of the Royal Navy converting its frigates into nuclear-powered surface vessels remains firmly off the table for the foreseeable future, there are no plans to add warp cores or hyperdrive engines either..


https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/tory-mp-inexplicably-asks-for-nuclear-powered-frigates/

[Asturias56]

Where do they get them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Rosindell

He seems to have had a chequered career - In 2010, the BBC reported that Rosindell had breached Parliamentary rules by accepting subsidised overseas trips to Gibraltar and subsequently raising multiple Gibraltar-related issues in Parliament without disclosing the trips in the Register of Members' Interests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_of_Members%27_Interests).

In September 2010 Rosindell sponsored the first Erotica (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotica_UK) event to be held in the Houses of Parliament. Rosindell maintained that he was promoting the hosts, a Romford-based business, as was his duty as the constituency MP. In June 2012, Rosindell was criticised for expressing "huge admiration" for former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet). In February 2015, Rosindell cast doubt on the ability of Rachel Reeves (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Reeves) (then Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions) to handle that ministerial responsibility in a putative post-election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election) Labour cabinet, as she would be taking maternity leave soon after the election and would then have a young child to care for following her return to the post in September. He was criticised for the remarks by Labour MPs, whilst Conservative leader (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Conservative_Party_(UK)) and Prime Minister David Cameron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron) described his comments as "outrageous".

At the 2015 election Rosindell was re-elected with 25,067 votes, on a 51% share, and also gained re-election to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Since the start of 2016, Rosindell has also been a member of the Advisory Board of the UK-based 'Polar Regions' think-tank Polar Research and Policy Initiative.

In January 2019, The Times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Times) discovered that Rosindell's Facebook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook) account was a member of a group supporting far-right activist Tommy Robinson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)). The group was specifically concerned with supporting Robinson after he was jailed for contempt of court. Rosindell said that he had been added to the group without his knowledge; however, according to The Times, it would be necessary for a Facebook user to confirm acceptance before being added to a group. On 21 October 2020, Rosindell was removed as trade envoy to Tanzania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzania), a position to which he had been appointed to by Theresa May (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May) in 2018, because of his highly critical views against Boris Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson)'s three-tier lockdown plan to tackle the second wave of the coronavirus pandemic in the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_Kingdom).

In November 2021, during an interview on the BBC's Newsnight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight), Rosindell said he was cautious about the idea of MPs being banned from having second jobs. He said MPs are "human beings who have families and responsibilities" but the first duty of MPs "must be to Parliament, to our constituency and to the work we do for our country." Politico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico) reported in December 2022 that Rosindell was among a small group of about ten backbench MPs who have made a large number of overseas visits while in office. Rosindell's travel record included 16 trips to Gibraltar and 29 trips to other countries, valued at at least £45,247.

In May 2022, Rosindell was arrested by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of crimes including indecent assault and abuse of a position of trust. He had been under investigation since January 2020 for events occurring between 2002 and 2009, when he was a whip and shadow minister. He denies any wrongdoing.

[ORAC]

How the US army is changing - artlillery, armour, C4I, logistics, AD - top to bottom.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2023/10/09/change-of-plans-us-army-embraces-lessons-learned-from-war-in-ukraine/

Change of plans: US Army embraces lessons learned from war in Ukraine

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2023/10/06/21000-casualties-in-seven-days-the-push-to-update-medic-training/

21,000 casualties in seven days: The push to update medic training

[ORAC]

https://x.com/totherchris/status/1716760525038600673?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


The penny-wise pound-foolish Apache/JAGM saga continues.…..

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1716760525038600673.html



​​​​​​​https://x.com/totherchris/status/1716816374532890966?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1088x1088/image_7c19a5cb9acc3a18227c97cf5b4d1706fbbaabb9.png
​​​​​​​

[SLXOwft]

Isn't the basis of the AH-64E contract commonality with the US fleet, wouldn't a Brimstone fit would deviate from that by requiring software changes? If it was common across the fleet presumably the US would expect the UK to provide the additional funds for the enhancement program(me)?

My understanding is the airframes, engines, rotor blades, and avionics are all new and the parts recycled from the WAH-64 include the mast-mounted assembly for the fire-control radar, LM's Modernized Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensor, the main rotor hub and other transmission elements, plus some structural elements.

Update: Having read further I realise the stated cost is £70m and that test firings have occured. I am lead to understand that JAGM uses the existing Hellfire body so is similar to the AH.1 fit and while it may not be as good as Brimstone in the Anti-armour role, its mult-ipurpose warhead may be effective against a wider range of targets.

[ORAC]

https://x.com/gabriel64869839/status/1726628674462687378?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


A new video by Strategic Command opens on this unknown drone on small catapult. AFAIK, not previously seen in UK service and one wonders if it has anything to do with "3D printed, delta wing, kamikaze drone" for Ukraine that was mentioned, then taken offline a few months back...

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/987x893/image_7a0bdcc9276c4f698d008099d36c8e19c65804ef.png
​​​​​​​

[Lyneham Lad]

Article by William Hague in The Times. (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2dcbe0e9-f5e5-4bcc-838f-6f952f4e4801?shareToken=09faa2a01facea5b06740b765e2e7a8e)

In the many years I represented Richmond, North Yorkshire, I lived just down the road from Catterick Garrison, Britain’s largest military base. A foreign visitor who happened to see only that part of our country would conclude that we are armed to the teeth. Fierce-looking Gurkhas stroll the streets, the shops are busy with uniformed personnel, machine-gun fire from mock battles fills the air and road signs tell the unwary to look out for tanks. Military life and the local community are intertwined. This, the visitor would think, is a country ready for anything.
But for most people, at a time when our army is the smallest since the Napoleonic era, the defence of the country is now remote from them. The majority probably know no one who serves in the armed forces. Only a fragment of the population possesses military skills. We enjoy the luxury of defence being someone else’s problem, of not needing to volunteer, and of signalling our virtue by not even investing in anything as grubby as making weapons. We expect the army to appear miraculously if we need ambulances driven, or border posts manned, or floods managing, but otherwise it’s out of our sight and our mind.
This luxurious complacency has to come to an end. In two democracies currently at war, Israel and Ukraine, defence is the responsibility of virtually the whole society. Israel has just mobilised forces (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/israeli-reservists-join-surge-eradicate-hamas-gaza-conflict-56c697w2n) three times the size of ours from a country one-seventh the size. Ukraine is a reminder that wars of more than a few weeks are fought not just by an army but by a nation, in which its survival depends on the ability to adapt technology, convert factories, defend its cyberspace — on civilians and factories deploying crucial skills in support of armed forces.
While Britain is much less likely to be directly attacked than Israel or Ukraine, a rational person would struggle to survey the world today and consider the emerging threats to be no greater than in the past 30 years. Dictators are on adventures, climate change is accelerating, terrorists and rogue states are ready to exploit new technologies. The US, our indispensable ally, is fully prepared to elect an utterly erratic president.
Is the world likely to be more dangerous in the near future than the recent past? Yes, I’m afraid so. Should we blithely continue with only one in three hundred of our population having deployable military skills, not minding if crucial hardware is made far away and considering investing in defence industries as unethical? No. The relationship between wider society and its own defence has to change.
Even without being attacked ourselves, our resilience to support a war is under strain. As Russia ramps up the production of artillery shells, Ukraine begs for more supplies, while a Nato commander says, “we are looking at the bottom of the barrel”. G7 democracies have a combined GDP 25 times that of Russia: we can easily outproduce them if we wish to. Putin can only win if westerners can’t be sufficiently bothered to stop him. But our economies have grown used to the luxury of peace and lack the capacity to sustain conflict.

To be fair, ministers and generals are already pushing in the right direction. On top of training 50,000 Ukrainian soldiers (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-crash-course-turning-ukrainians-into-soldiers-in-the-uk-kdv8rjkws) — good old Catterick again — the UK is putting billions of pounds into replenishing exhausted ammunition stocks. The Defence and Security Industrial Strategy has given new emphasis to increasing “onshore skills”. And inventive ways of expanding the pool of skills for the military are being tried — a Cyber Reserve Force, digital bursaries for students who might bring technical skills to the armed forces and more flexibility to move between a military and industrial career in a “spectrum of service”.
But some of these measures are only baby steps towards preparing for a potentially more violent world. As the parties plan their election manifestos, they should give defence greater importance than in recent years. The target of raising defence spending from 2.1 per cent to 2.5 per cent needs to be fleshed out by Tories and adopted by a hesitant Labour Party.
Future governments can do much more to encourage investment in capacity with longer-term spending commitments and to ensure growing research spending expands British abilities in the many areas that are dual use: necessary for a thriving economy but also critical in conflict. This includes AI, computer vision, big-data computing, robotics, drones and sensors. A new model is needed of public-private sector task forces, encouraging disruptive smaller companies and prizing speed and innovation more than bureaucratic tendering processes.

Fresh thinking is needed on the responsibility of citizens to defend their country, while enhancing their own skills. Our Armed Forces Covenant could be extended to central government but we can also learn from, and over time adopt, a Nordic model of service. Both Norway and Sweden have a form of competitive national service, in which young people are selected for places in their armed forces, serving for up to 16 months. While only 14 per cent of young Norwegians serve in this way, the result is a far bigger pool of trained reserves, as well as more young people with practical skills joining the economy.

But this is about more than government spending and military numbers. The attitude that the defence of a free society is an unethical activity must be abandoned. Fund managers and financial institutions should acknowledge that ESG — environmental, social and governance — investments cannot exclude defence. At the moment, companies making products for military use are denied access to many funds. Consequently, it is more expensive than in other sectors to raise capital or find insurance. It is time to insert a new “S” — security — in what might be better termed ESSG.

The production of arms is fundamental to a free society. There is nothing remotely ethical about a soldier defending democracy having to face an adversary with more advanced equipment, nothing sustainable about a free society that is vulnerable to attack, nothing environmental about losing territory to an invader. Ask the Ukrainians about the ecocide committed by Putin in destroying the Kakhovka dam if you think ESG is nothing to do with defending yourself. We all want to be virtuous but virtue requires us to be strong as well as caring.

A few months ago, two ministers, Andrew Griffith and James Cartlidge, made that argument, saying “there could hardly be a bigger or more positive social responsibility than investing in peace”. They are right. That should be part of a broader reassessment, involving political parties, citizens and businesses, in understanding that the defence of a country and its allies is once again critical to its peace and security as well as vital to a skilled, high-tech economy. In future, more of Britain needs to be just a little bit more like North Yorkshire.

[ORAC]

I will make a guess and say it will be base at Mount Olympus (is it still 280 SU?) to get above most of the atmosphere and weather.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2023/11/22/project-nyx-alpha-to-boost-uk-space-commands-domain-awareness/

Project Nyx Alpha to boost UK Space Command’s domain awareness

London - The U.K.’s Space Command is in line to boost to it’s space domain awareness capabilities following a deal announced by the Ministry of Defence Nov 22 for a small London-based company to set up and operate a ground-based telescope in Cyprus.

Known as Project Nyx Alpha, the capability being provided by British space technology company SpaceFlux will enable Space Command and the U.K. Space Agency to accurately monitor the fast growing number of satellites and debris in orbit.

The British plan to have the system in play by spring 2024, reestablishing a former capability that had lapsed.

Spaceflux will build, maintain, and routinely operate the system tasked by UK Space Command and UK Space Agency analysts from the soon to launch U.K. Space Operations Centre at the Royal Air Force base at High Wycombe, southern England, said the MoD in a statement

The centre is planned to coordinate civilian and military space domain awareness capabilities to enable operations and protect U.K. interests like the Skynet satellite communications network from space-related threats and hazards.

Announcing the deal at the U.K. Space conference in Belfast, Northern Ireland, Air Vice-Marshal Paul Godfrey, the head of the UK Space Command said the new capability was a key part in helping Britain defend its interests in space.

“Space domain awareness underpins our ability to protect and defend U.K. and allied interests in space. The U.K has critical assets in geostationary orbit, and Project Nyx Alpha will help us to monitor them more closely”, he said.

To support military and civil missions in space Godfrey also announced the British have procured space domain awareness data from Spaceflux, as well as Raytheon Systems.

On it’s website Spaceflux says it offers access to the largest optical taskable sensors currently available in the market, with telescopes up to 70-cm in diameter, allowing the detection of the faintest objects from LEO to GEO and Cislunar.

The website says the company is rapidly expanding its network to 10 locations this year and a total of 25 locations by the end of 2024.

Cyprus was chosen as the location for the British telescope due to the fact it provides a better view of the geostationary orbit than sites on the UK mainland said the MoD statement.

The U.K. already have a major military base on the eastern Mediterranean island.

[Timelord]

My guess is that it is connected to the very large, very secure building visible on Google earth where the hospital used to be. And it’s some telescope if it can view objects in geostationary orbit at 22236 miles!

[Asturias56]

Todays "Times" carries a report on the Institute for Fiscal Studies take on the Autumn Statement. They reckon the Govt will be looking for £ 20 Bn in cuts fairly soon across the board

Lets hope it doesn't it defence but you know how they like to spread the pain around........................ :(

[ORAC]

https://x.com/zaphod2042/status/1729121518645637246?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


The French air force now has as many A400Ms as the RAF.... Except they also have 28 more on order. Plus 16 C-130s and 27 CN-235s.

Not so long ago the RAF's air transport fleet was the envy of our allies. Now, like everything else, a stunted and boutique force lacking mass.

[Bob Viking]

You may be right but the FAF had to borrow our C17s when they needed something a little bigger.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsraf-deploys-c17-globemaster-aircraft-mali-mission/

BV

[PPRuNeUser0211]

You may be right but the FAF had to borrow our C17s when they needed something a little bigger.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsraf-deploys-c17-globemaster-aircraft-mali-mission/

BV
And our Chinook force... Numbers aren't everything! (Though they sometimes help)

​​

[ORAC]

Politico, London Playbook:

DEFENSE CUTS

Defense chiefs face making further cuts to Britain’s armed forces to fill a £16.9 billion black hole in their finances, a National Audit Office report (https://www.nao.org.uk/reports/equipment-plan-2023-to-2033/) finds today. The Mail has the full story. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12821647/The-UKs-armed-forces-face-cuts-record-17-billion-black-hole-defence-budget.html)

[Asturias56]

ConclusionsThe MoD acknowledges that its Equipment Plan for 2023–2033 is unaffordable, with forecast costs exceeding its current budget by £16.9 billion. This is a marked deterioration in the financial position since the previous Plan in 2022, which the MoD judged to be affordable.

In part, this is because inflation, which we highlighted last year as not being fully reflected, is now showing its effect. But more importantly, the costs of delivering major priorities have increased significantly as the MoD has sought to show more clearly the gap between the available budget and the ambitions expressed in the 2023 update of the Integrated Review and the associated Defence Command Paper, the consequences of which MoD is still working through.

Deficits between forecast costs and budgets have increased in the DNE because MoD has brought forward costs to deliver the nuclear deterrent to schedule, and also in non-nuclear areas including the RAF, the UK Strategic Command, the Strategic Programmes Directorate, and the Navy’s conventional capabilities. Only the Army has not shown an increased deficit, although this is because the Army has only included forecast costs that it can afford, which means it is accepting greater risks that its capabilities will not meet government’s objectives.

The MoD is using the 2023 Equipment Plan to set the baseline for its capability requirements ahead of the next government-wide Spending Review, which it expects is likely in 2024, and has chosen to defer any choices on spending priorities until then. This approach, while understandable given the ambitions expressed in the updated Integrated Review, risks poor value for money if spending continues in the meantime on programmes which are then cancelled, descoped or deferred because they are unaffordable. It also means that the Plan does not provide a reliable assessment of the affordability of MoD’s equipment programme or demonstrate to Parliament how it will manage its funding to deliver equipment projects.

[Asturias56]

"the MoD has sought to show more clearly the gap between the available budget and the ambitions expressed in the 2023 update of the Integrated Review"

as usual the political will doesn't stretch to paying more for what they want the armed services to do :(

[Asturias56]

F35-B combat aircraft third front-line squadron (Royal Air Force) The investment cost of developing a third front-line squadron increases the capital budget shortfall by £0.1 billion between 2023-24 and 2026-27, and this option is not accompanied by funding of £0.4 billion needed to operate the squadron.

[melmothtw]

You may be right but the FAF had to borrow our C17s when they needed something a little bigger.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsraf-deploys-c17-globemaster-aircraft-mali-mission/

BV

IIRC, they used our C-17s before their A400Ms became operational. Indeed, that link dates to 2013.

[Asturias56]

Article in the Times by the guy who runs the (conservative) institute for Fiscal Studies

reckons to get finances back on track we'd need to consider means testing the pension, cutting free health care, cutting defence by 50%, ending support for child-care etc etc

doesn't reckon anyone will have the nerve tho'

[Strucky]

I would be agreeable to using means testing for the state pension providing I get a refund on 50 years of NI contributions, plus interest.

[ORAC]

Means test down to where?

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x816/image_cfdd2a7c783f7fa0cb74954398885c9e80eac2c9.jpeg

[Asturias56]

"Means test down to where?"

To where the books balance I guess...............

[Asturias56]

I would be agreeable to using means testing for the state pension providing I get a refund on 50 years of NI contributions, plus interest.

as we all know its NOT a pension scheme as such - you pay for your elders and betters and you hope the kids will pay for you when you reach retirement. When it was set up 100+yeras back that was the only way they could afford it - and it's (almost) impossible to change

[ORAC]

https://x.com/mylovanov/status/1734328740610511296?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A
The West has a blind spot and needs to realize Russia's transformation. It's no longer just a nation with unlimited numbers of bodies for cannon fodder; it's now adept with advanced drones, from Shaheds to Lancets, and AI-driven tech for warfare….

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1734328740610511296.html

[ORAC]

https://www.forces.net/services/army/general-says-hard-edged-decisions-be-made-if-army-be-most-lethal-europe

General says hard-edged decisions to be made if Army is to be most lethal in Europe

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) faces some "hard-edged decisions" if the Army is to achieve its goal of becoming one of the most lethal in Europe, a senior general has warned.

Lieutenant General Rob Magowan, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Financial & Military Capability) was speaking to MPs after the department admitted there was a near-£17bn shortfall for new weapons and equipment over the next 10 years.…..

Speaking to the Commons Defence Committee, Lt Gen Magowan said: "Lessons from Ukraine and other operations worldwide show that we want more resilience and greater capability.

"There isn't at the moment the headroom within the equipment programme within the Army to reach the level of requirement that we think we need against the threat.

"We are now working as part of ABC (Annual Budget Cycle) 24, but more crucially as part of what we hope is an integrated review with a longer-term settlement to determine what within the Army programme or across defence we might take operational risk on".

He added:"We haven't completed that process so I can't say here today these are the capabilities within the Army or across defence that we're going to delete or defer….

"But we're going to have to make those hard-edged decisions if we're going to realise the operational requirements."

[Asturias56]

" that we're going to delete or defer…."

That sounds like a promise - not even an Aspiration.................. :(

[ORAC]

Sir Humphrey (pinstripedline):

“The 2023 CDS RUSI speech is a fascinating insight into the challenges facing the MOD.

Pinstripedline analysis on the budget crisis facing MOD and asks if it is time to scrap the Carrier to focus instead on NATO.”;

http://tinyurl.com/mr2hwcz4

[melmothtw]

One Russian submarine makes an appearance off the coast of Ireland, and 'Sir H' calls for both QE carriers to be binned? Putin must be pissing himself laughing.

[Video Mixdown]

One Russian submarine makes an appearance off the coast of Ireland, and 'Sir H' calls for both QE carriers to be binned? Putin must be pissing himself laughing.
The bit about Ireland deciding to scrap sonar equipped ships to invest in other capabilities is amusing too. What other capabilities would they be?

[ORAC]

Since you ask, see page 12, para 44.

https://assets.gov.ie/271499/2fa0481e-db11-4f8b-adf4-804c02d7559e.pdf

Subsurface awareness comes 7th on the list, military radar 1st - obviously more worried about Bears and Blackjacks than submarines.

[SLXOwft]

Speech as delivered by CDS is here https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chief-of-the-defence-staff-admiral-sir-tony-radakin-rusi-lecture-2023

I perceive it as saying Russia is a genuine threat but should be easily contained by NATO It is absurd to entertain the notion that Russia is in anyway a match for NATO. - However, that appears to ignore any possibliliy of threatened use of nuclear weapons.

However it does not just focus on Russia.And then if we head east, the corresponding frameworks that might govern great power competition in the Indo-Pacific are absent altogether.

When you take the emerging great power competition, and the absent or decaying security architectures and add to that… the pace of technological change… the advent of AI…the impact of climate change…competition for natural resources, migration, health insecurity… as well as deep seated regional inequalities…

…This all represents a profound challenge to global stability, to our physical and economic security, and to our way of life.

As to money - any speech by a defence chief has to toe HMG's line or he or she will have to start looking for charitable directorships sooner than expected.

The era of state-on-state competition has returned and will remain with us for decades to come.

We’re spending more on Defence. We’re transforming the Armed Forces. We’re becoming more integrated. But is the machinery and thinking deep within the British state truly calibrated to the scale of what is unfolding? In short: Does it all stack up? The resilience of our nation, and the ability to draw deep on our defence industry or our reserves? The ability of our extraordinary intelligence agencies to encompass the vast range of new and global threats?

These are big questions. And to be clear this is not a discussion about the next spending review

The speech mentions efforts by the US and others to engage India as a counter balance to China. Personally, I have real concerns as to where India is going under the nationalist BJP:O.

[Timelord]

Good to hear that NATO could easily outmatch Russia, but what about NATO minus the Trump USA?

[melmothtw]

Good to hear that NATO could easily outmatch Russia, but what about NATO minus the Trump USA?

Not going to happen -

Rob Person 🇺🇸🇺🇦 on X: "A big win for America and our allies: the NDAA that Congress just passed will prevent a US President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO without the advice, consent, and support of the Senate. Important show of resolve to allies and adversaries alike! https://t.co/ucUSjgTTLF" / X (twitter.com)

The Hill on X: "Congress approves bill barring any president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO https://t.co/iHD8RKEra7" / X (twitter.com)

[ORAC]

The question being what will they cut to pay for a MSAM capability capable of covering the whole of the U.K.? Unless,of course, they just mean London and the south east…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-pledges-urgent-review-of-britains-defence-capabilities-flwcnjv5l

Labour pledges urgent review of Britain’s defence capabilities

Britain has no means of preventing either a rogue missile attack on the country or the sabotage of vital underwater sea cables, Labour has warned, as the party pledged to launch an urgent review of Britain’s defence capabilities in government.…

The UK does not currently have any land-based air defences to protect critical infrastructure or population centres from attack by medium-range and long-range ballistic missiles.

The threat has always been considered minimal since the Cold War, with more pressing demands on other aspects of the defence budget. However, in the wake of the conflicts in the Ukraine and the Middle East Labour says it will look again at this approach if it comes to power next year, with a review of where such spending is allocated.

It follows moves by other European countries who have scrambled to procure air defences after watching Russia launch barrages of missiles and drones at Ukraine….

Healey said that the party would conduct a comprehensive review of Britain’s defensive capabilities, adding that the “first duty of any government is to keep the nation safe”.

“The brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine has shown that a country under threat or in conflict must have the capabilities to defend its citizens and prevent its territory from coming under attack,” he wrote….

Labour sources said Healey was concerned that too little focus had been given to defensive capabilities in previous strategic defence and security reviews.

In particular, he is concerned that the UK does not currently have the capacity to shoot down hostile missiles aimed at a settlement or piece of strategic infrastructure, such as a nuclear power station.

There are also worries over the security of critical underwater cables that facilitate telephone communications and internet access.

Healey said it was unclear what, if any, contingency plans the Ministry of Defence had to deal with such threats, which was why it was necessary to conduct an “under the hood” review of the whole of Britain’s capacity to defend its territory.

“This is why, in our first year, we’ll conduct a strategic defence and security review to assess the state of our armed forces, the nature of threats and the capabilities needed,” he said.

Defence sources say Britain does not have any land-based air defences comparable to the US or Israeli long-range systems. Instead, it relies on the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers, two of which are currently deployed in the Red Sea (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-navy-shoots-down-suspected-attack-drone-in-red-sea-jhmpkbkm2), to shoot down drones, fighter jets and cruise missiles.….

[Asturias56]

"Healey said it was unclear what, if any, contingency plans the Ministry of Defence had to deal with such threats,"

i think we can guess............................. :(

[ORAC]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-seeks-advanced-underwater-force-protection-capabilities/

MoD seeks advanced underwater force protection capabilities

The Ministry of Defence has released the Request for Information for advanced underwater force protection solutions.Outlined in the RFI, the Ministry explicitly states, “The Royal Navy is seeking information on current and future Underwater Force Protection capabilities including portable or fixed sonar systems, other find capabilities, anti-diver and counter UUV capabilities.”

Delving deeper into the requirements, the RFI specifies, “UW PROTECT, within Navy DEV, are interested in exploring the options of deployable underwater protection systems which can be deployed on board all RN Vessels in both UK waters and overseas.”

The document further defines the operational expectations of these systems: “These systems should be able to detect and track all underwater contacts ranging from larger targets such as UUVs to smaller targets such as smaller UUVs, ROVs and Divers.”Additionally, it highlights the necessity for these systems to perform in diverse conditions, stating, “They should be able to operate with accuracy within busy harbour and anchorage environments which have a high traffic density.”

The RFI also addresses the practical aspects of system deployment and usability. It points out, “Such systems should be person portable, with a simple user interface, and be quick and easy to deploy at short notice.”

For long-term installations, the RFI expresses interest in “current and future fixed underwater protection capabilities which could be installed to protect UK national maritime infrastructure or installed within UK military ports to protect RN assets and facilities.”

This RFI aims to achieve four outcomes:
.

Align the MOD requirement with industry capability and processes for procurement of the required solution.
Develop a procurement strategy that will deliver best value for money for Defence.
Implement an enduring solution that allows the Authority to plan its activity against an assured continuity of service, whilst also supporting ad-hoc, unprogrammed surges in demand.
To inform a Procurement Strategy that enables the implementation of an enduring solution.

This RFI represents a strategic effort by the Ministry of Defence to gather essential information that will shape their approach to acquiring advanced underwater defence capabilities.

With responses due by 5 January 2024, the outcomes of this RFI are poised to significantly influence the Royal Navy’s defence procurement and operational strategies in the coming years.

[Asturias56]

"The document further defines the operational expectations of these systems: “These systems should be able to detect and track all underwater contacts ranging from larger targets such as UUVs to smaller targets such as smaller UUVs, ROVs and Divers.”Additionally, it highlights the necessity for these systems to perform in diverse conditions, stating, “They should be able to operate with accuracy within busy harbour and anchorage environments which have a high traffic density.”

The RFI also addresses the practical aspects of system deployment and usability. It points out, “Such systems should be person portable, with a simple user interface, and be quick and easy to deploy at short notice.”"


Man portable sonar systems able to operate in busy environments? That's sort of .... difficult?

[Video Mixdown]

Man portable sonar systems able to operate in busy environments? That's sort of .... difficult?
What technological expertise do you have to be able to judge what can and cannot be done?

[ORAC]

Sounds more like a mechanical dolphin able to patrol a harbour and approaches.

[SLXOwft]

The requirement for the system is undeniable, trawling the market place for existing or planned systems to do the job is sensible. I fear, however, like a number of projects for which I have recently managed requirements under a 'must be COTS' directive, the shelf may currently be bare of something that matches the bulk of requirements, and require a cooperative development pathway with a chosen supplier.

Anyway the relevant technologies have come a long way since it involved my old man and an oppo paddling a canoe round Trincomalee Harbour armed with a bucket of hand grenades trying to identify any intruding IJN minisubs with a sensor outfit consisting of four Mk1 eyeballs, four Mk 1 ears, and a pair of binoculars.

Anyway, I am off to continue reading Citadel of Waste. https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/656595-citadel-waste-david-hill.html (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/656595-citadel-waste-david-hill.html)

[ORAC]

https://x.com/logisticthinker/status/1744261675312714186?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


There’s an elephant in the room in the Royal Navy, and it’s the UK’s Commando Force.

Pulled from pillar to post, lacking clear vision and direction, very senior officers trying to take chunks out of them and then using them for things they’re now not designed for 1/18

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1744261675312714186.html
​​​​​​​

[rattman]

Soon they will be conisdering fitting 104 NSM to HMS Victory and turning it into and arsenal ship. They might try some VLS but assume the mast and the rigging will play silly buggers with them


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/700x482/_826_960x4000_0_1f7828170d25ea86a842bbd540b6b86139df544a.jpg

[Asturias56]

Its about time they finished the refit on her and got her back to sea ;)

[Biggus]

But they gave the refit job to Ferguson Marine, so it could be a while yet before it's completed :ugh:

[artee]

Its about time they finished the refit on her and got her back to sea ;)
Is that a ski jump on the front?

[Asturias56]

yes and 100+ missile silos firing unguided missiles with LOT of reloads available

Make you wonder why they didn't equip the T45's with a few.......................

Crewing numbers are a bit high tho'

[PapaDolmio]

Soon they will be conisdering fitting 104 NSM to HMS Victory and turning it into and arsenal ship. They might try some VLS but assume the mast and the rigging will play silly buggers with them


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/700x482/_826_960x4000_0_1f7828170d25ea86a842bbd540b6b86139df544a.jpg
Last time I visited the masts weren't even on her so maybe......stick a couple of engines in the bottom?

I read somewhere that the weight of shot from a single broadside from Victory was greater than that if all the artillery used by the British Army at the Battle of Waterloo fired at once. Not sure if its true but if so it rather demonstrates the power of a single man o war. I would not like to be on the receiving end.

[Asturias56]

Mark Adkin's "Trafalgar Companion" pg 302 has a comparison. Adkin also wrote similar massive and well illustrated book on on Waterloo & Gettysburg.

"At Waterloo a total of 497 guns were deployed by the British, Prussian and French - at Trafalgar there were 4662 guns. One discharge of all the artillery at Waterloo would total 1,5 tons of metal. compared to the combined 47 tons at Trafalgar. The French Grand Battery (80 guns) could fire 0.25 tons in volley whereas a single 74 , such as Mars, could fire 0.75 tons in a (two sided) broadside."

Of course at Waterloo you also had 200,000 infantry and Cavalry all shooting as well - although none of them were as effective as a single French marksman on the Redoutable.................

[ORAC]

https://x.com/navylookout/status/1745090703959392677?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


The Commons Defence Committee announces the intention to hold an evidence session within the next few weeks examining the future of HMS Albion, HMS Bulwark and Royal Marine capabilities.

​​​​​​​https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/24/defence-committee/news/199312/defence-committee-announces-intention-for-session-on-hms-albion-hms-bulwark-and-royal-marine-capabilities/

[Biggus]

The evidence will consist of the shortage of manpower issues and lack of funds - and the only decision will be about how much to cut/scrap.

[Martin the Martian]

But we can recruit them much more easily. Just need a couple of coshes. And they won't take as long to train.

[Ninthace]

Mark Adkin's "Trafalgar Companion" pg 302 has a comparison. Adkin also wrote similar massive and well illustrated book on on Waterloo & Gettysburg.

"At Waterloo a total of 497 guns were deployed by the British, Prussian and French - at Trafalgar there were 4662 guns. One discharge of all the artillery at Waterloo would total 1,5 tons of metal. compared to the combined 47 tons at Trafalgar. The French Grand Battery (80 guns) could fire 0.25 tons in volley whereas a single 74 , such as Mars, could fire 0.75 tons in a (two sided) broadside."

Of course at Waterloo you also had 200,000 infantry and Cavalry all shooting as well - although none of them were as effective as a single French marksman on the Redoutable.................
Be fair, it would have been hard to hit Nelson from Belgium in any circumstances.

[Asturias56]

The evidence will consist of the shortage of manpower issues and lack of funds - and the only decision will be about how much to cut/scrap.

I guess the question will be what is the point of the RM Commando Force is without the ships......

[ASRAAMTOO]

I guess the question will be what is the point of the RM Commando Force is without the ships......
Which of course leads to extra savings. A cunning plan Baldrick

[artee]

But we can recruit them much more easily. Just need a couple of coshes. And they won't take as long to train.
Could we use the King's shilling, or should it be Bitcoin nowadays?

[Asturias56]

Which of course leads to extra savings. A cunning plan Baldrick

maybe just accept that their time has come and roll them into the Army as Naval Battalions as in WW1 - they can keep the title (as in Rifle Brigade, Hussars, Lancers etc ect) but use them as PBI. "Commando" was a WW2 creation

[Not_a_boffin]

maybe just accept that their time has come and roll them into the Army as Naval Battalions as in WW1 - they can keep the title (as in Rifle Brigade, Hussars, Lancers etc ect) but use them as PBI. "Commando" was a WW2 creation
Because the Army really needs more PBI doesn't it? Oh, wait. They don't actually know what they want - or why.......

They are naval forces for a reason. That reason is not necessarily recreating Overlord, Corporate, Telic.

[SLXOwft]

I'll be interested to see if Labour plans to address the hollowing out and funding shortfalls across all three services, but I suspect the defence parsnips will not be buttered in the next parliament.

Royal Navy ‘underfunded’, says shadow defence secretary as UK strikes Houthi group

The Royal Navy is “hollowed out and underfunded,” the shadow defence secretary has suggested.

Speaking on Friday morning (12 January), after the UK and US launched targeted strikes against military facilities used by Houthi rebels in Yemen, John Healey shared his worries over the resources available to the armed forces.

“The former defence secretary told me in the House of Commons, he admitted that over the last 13 years, the government has hollowed out and underfunded the forces,” he said.

“It is important that we are able [to] - as we have in recent weeks in the Red Sea and wider region - act alongside allies.”

(Article credited to Oliver Browning on The Independent website)

[pr00ne]

The evidence will consist of the shortage of manpower issues and lack of funds - and the only decision will be about how much to cut/scrap.

There will be no decisions, the Defence Commons Select Committees do not take decisions, that is not their job.

[Not_a_boffin]

I'll be interested to see if Labour plans to address the hollowing out and funding shortfalls across all three services, but I suspect the defence parsnips will not be buttered in the next parliament.
As ever, Healey is being economical with the truth to put it mildly. What Wallace actually said was that all governments of all persuasions have hollowed out the forces since the end of the cold war.

The mendacious tw@t.

[ORAC]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-confirm-new-cruise-missile-to-enter-service-in-2028/

MOD confirm new cruise missile to enter service in 2028

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed the service entry for the maritime-launched Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon to be 2028.

The information came to light in response to Labour’s defence spokesman John Healey MP and can be found below.

James Cartlidge, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, addressed the inquiry, stated, “The planning assumption for service entry for the maritime-launched Future Cruise / Anti-Ship Weapon is 2028; a decision around which options, including off the shelf choices, should fulfil this requirement is ongoing, and will be confirmed in due course in the Full Business Case.”

The FC/ASW initiative, co-developed by France and the United Kingdom and launched in 2017, is a successor to the jointly-developed Storm Shadow/SCALP, Exocet, and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

The programme, equally funded by both nations and spearheaded by European missile manufacturer MBDA, is outlined in the Lancaster House treaties.

In 2022, the programme was evaluating two missile concepts: a low observable subsonic cruise missile and a supersonic highly manoeuvrable missile, moving away from a previous focus on a hypersonic solution akin to the CVS401 Perseus.

The current trajectory of the FC/ASW programme involves completing the assessment phase by 2024 and proceeding to the manufacturing phase from 2025 to 2035. Notably, the programme plans to introduce two role-specific variants, with a deep-strike, land-attack variant expected to be operational from 2028 and an anti-ship variant from 2034.

[ORAC]

Sir Humphrey…https://x.com/pinstripedline/status/1750288632340996562?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Schrodinger's Armed Forces - They can be both smaller due to technology, but need to be larger to cope with a national crisis.

In a week where 'conscription' dominated UK headlines, a Pinstripedline blog on whether the MOD needs technology or people?

​​​​​​​http://tinyurl.com/s6xhe4db

[Asturias56]

Someone in today's Times makes the point that the UK still has pretty tight limits on people being recruited - age for example. Using older people where physical strength and endurance isn't needed would really open up aa much bigger pool of people

[minigundiplomat]

Judging by the RAF's current ads (even post Wigston) there is little interest in white males, let alone older ones.

[SLXOwft]

Looking at the quarterly stats (if my maths is right) I estimate the following ratio of recruited vs applications:Naval Service 8.4%, Army 8.1%, and RAF 5.8% the corresponding figures for Officers only are 4.8%, 7.25% and 2.48%.

Not sure how this compares historically but, given the shortfall in intake vs outflow, it suggest to me that either too many of the wrong sort of people are being attracted or there is the possibility to lower the bar slightly to accept more with a need to tolerate a higher chop rate during training.

[pr00ne]

Judging by the RAF's current ads (even post Wigston) there is little interest in white males, let alone older ones.

Yeah, because the RAF SO lacks white males…

[dervish]

Speaking to my nieces and nephews a common thing is the adverse media stories. It's one disaster after another and they ask why each time some gold braid says "we've learned our lessons it won't happen again" and then it does time after time. And they're wise enough to realise that it's not a recent thing, it's just that the Mod managed to keep it underwraps in the days before social media.

[Asturias56]

Looking at the quarterly stats (if my maths is right) I estimate the following ratio of recruited vs applications:Naval Service 8.4%, Army 8.1%, and RAF 5.8% the corresponding figures for Officers only are 4.8%, 7.25% and 2.48%.

Not sure how this compares historically but, given the shortfall in intake vs outflow, it suggest to me that either too many of the wrong sort of people are being attracted or there is the possibility to lower the bar slightly to accept more with a need to tolerate a higher chop rate during training.

I understand the time gap between applying and being assessed just gets longer and longer and people lose interest- ah for the good old days of the Recruiting Sergeant down at the pub................ or the Press Gang

[Asturias56]

This weeks Economist editorial:-How to fix British defenceIt needs more money and more people, but also reform
Feb 1st 2024
BRITAIN’S ARMED forces have much to be proud of. The Royal Navy is engaged in some of the most intense naval skirmishing since the Falklands war, knocking Houthi missiles out of the sky above the Red Sea (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2024/01/18/tracking-ships-in-the-red-sea). The Royal Air Force (RAF) is still flying over Iraq and Syria to keep Islamic State in check. The army has trained more than 60,000 Ukrainian soldiers in the past ten years and helps guard Estonia (https://www.economist.com/britain/boris-johnson-on-a-european-coalitions-role-against-russia/21808195).Yet something is rotten in British defence. Even though the country is the sixth-largest military spender in the world and the largest in Europe, it is not always clear where the money goes. The navy’s fleet operates fewer frigates and destroyers than Japan, South Korea or France. The army, at its smallest in centuries, would struggle to deploy a single heavy division. Britain has admirably emptied its cupboard to arm Ukraine, but its meagre ammunition holdings are now a matter of grave concern. What has gone wrong?

The first problem is cash. In 2020 the government boasted of the biggest sustained increase in defence spending for 30 years. It spends just over £50bn ($64bn) on defence, a sum that crosses NATO’s threshold of 2% of GDP. But a fifth of the budget goes on nuclear weapons. The conventional forces that Britain needs are being cannibalised to pay for nuclear cost-overruns. Strip out the nuclear bits and defence spending stands at around 1.75% of GDP, in the middle of the European pack.

The second problem is a lack of manpower. In 2010, when the Conservative Party entered government, the British Army was over 100,000-strong. It is now due to fall to 72,500. The government says that technology means fewer people are needed than in the past. This is casuistry. The Royal Navy is decommissioning ships for want of sailors. New technology often requires more personnel to maintain and operate it, not fewer. Even at its reduced scale, the army is struggling to recruit; beefing up the army reserve would be one way to help.

British defence cannot be fixed without more money and more people. But the country’s defence woes are also rooted in deeper problems of culture, outlook and process. Far too often (https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/01/29/britains-armed-forces-are-stretched-perilously-thin), penny-pinching and short-termism have resulted in Britain buying high-end kit and then economising on the things that make it work properly. The Treasury bears some responsibility for this state of affairs. It has incentivised services to delay expensive projects. That balances the books in the short run but causes costs to balloon overall. Its strictures can have absurd results. Reducing an order of Wedgetail airborne command aircraft from five to three means that the RAF may not have one available in a crisis.

Yet the services also deserve much of the blame, having repeatedly botched major projects. That is hardly unique to the armed forces or to Britain. But if Britain is serious about re-arming, it may have to buy more foreign equipment off the shelf rather than demanding new features and insisting on domestic design and manufacturing. The ill-fated Ajax armoured vehicle—whose excessive vibration deafened crew—was supposed to be based on a pre-existing Austrian-Spanish platform. After the army unwisely added 1,200 requirements, it was essentially bespoke.

The Tories have had 13 years in office and four defence reviews. They will not, as an election approaches, solve problems that have festered for years. But with Ukraine in peril and Russia rearming fast, defence is once again too important to suffer from neglect. Like one of Britain’s ageing fleet of armoured vehicles, the country’s defence system is no longer good enough. The next government should act quickly and boldly to fix it. ■

[ORAC]

HoC Defence Committe Report.

First Report - Ready for War? - 4th Feb 2024

Summary: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmdfence/26/summary.html

Full Report: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/43178/documents/214880/default/

[Ninthace]

How about we give everyone in the Treasury a proper war role in the front line?

[Brewster Buffalo]

HoC Defence Committe Report. First Report - Ready for War? - 4th Feb 2024

The part relevant to the RAF can be found on P25 of the full report..surprised to learn that "the Poseidon MRA1, Wedgetail AEW1, RC-135W Rivet Joint and C-17 Globemaster aircraft .....all lack an in-flight refuelling probe to make them compatible with the RAF Voyager tanker fleet."

[Asturias56]

59. Professor Justin Bronk also raised the issue of F-35 fleet size, describing the F-35 force as “triple or quadruple-hatted in terms of how many parts of UK defence are counting on it for how many mission outputs in the case of a war [and] … there are not very many of them.

[Biggus]

The Poseidon, Wedgetail, Rivet Joint and C-17 are all US aircraft, designed to air to air refuel using the boom method (as I'm sure everyone on here already knows!!).

Would you trust/pay any contractor (BAE and Nimrod MR2 refuelling probe) to convert them for probe/drogue?

Anyway, according to our betters, apparently we are always going to fight as part of NATO aren't we, so it's not a problem....

[scoutah1]

If I remember correctly some years ago (I forget when and which administration) military pensions were moved from the general pension pot into the defence budget to make it appear that we were hittingthe 2% requirement.

[SLXOwft]

In 2014/15 there was the addition of war pensions (£820 million), contributions
to UN peacekeeping missions (£400 million), pensions for retired civilian MOD
personnel (£200 million) and a large portion of MOD income (around £1.4
billion).
NATO accepted that the items conformed with its definition of defence
expenditure, although the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI, a leading
defence think tank) argued in 2015 that more information was needed before
the legitimacy of the decision could be decided.

House of Commons Library - Defence Expenditure
Briefing CBP-8175 20 April 2023 (https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8175/CBP-8175.pdf)

Note. AFPS were included but War pensions weren't

RUSI Paper can be found here:https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/briefing-papers/osbornes-summer-surprise-for-defence-guaranteed-real-terms-spending-increases

[Brewster Buffalo]

The Poseidon, Wedgetail, Rivet Joint and C-17 are all US aircraft, designed to air to air refuel using the boom method (as I'm sure everyone on here already knows!!).

Would you trust/pay any contractor (BAE and Nimrod MR2 refuelling probe) to convert them for probe/drogue?

.........

Then we should have asked Boeing.....well perhaps not..........

[SLXOwft]

Or maybe the UK should have specified a boom like every other A330 MRTT operator. :ugh:

[papajuliet]

I think I'm right in saying that, until the infamous Cameron government, the UK's nuclear deterrent was separately funded to the Defence budget. It was then included thereby making any comparison with previous and subsequent GDP figures misleading.

[Not_a_boffin]

I think I'm right in saying that, until the infamous Cameron government, the UK's nuclear deterrent was separately funded to the Defence budget. It was then included thereby making any comparison with previous and subsequent GDP figures misleading.
Nope. Common misconception. Didn't even apply back in the 80s when we bought Trident.

[ORAC]

I think I'm right in saying that, until the infamous Cameron government, the UK's nuclear deterrent was separately funded to the Defence budget. It was then included thereby making any comparison with previous and subsequent GDP figures misleading.


No, you’re wrong….

​​​​​​​
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8166/CBP-8166.pdf

[papajuliet]

Thank you.

[ORAC]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-plans-to-rethink-reduction-of-british-army/

No plans to rethink reduction of British Army

Despite earlier remarks by the previous Defence Secretary, the Ministry of Defence has now confirmed that the full-time strength of the British Army will indeed be reduced to 73,000 by 2025.

[Not_a_boffin]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/no-plans-to-rethink-reduction-of-british-army/

No plans to rethink reduction of British Army

Despite earlier remarks by the previous Defence Secretary, the Ministry of Defence has now confirmed that the full-time strength of the British Army will indeed be reduced to 73,000 by 2025.
And just so everyone is aware, that'll still be bigger than the German army.

[trim it out]

And just so everyone is aware, that'll still be bigger than the German army.
Yet the Bundeswehr is planning on expanding to over 200k SP by 2025, whilst we continue to downsize.

Link (https://www.dw.com/en/germany-may-increase-troop-numbers-to-203000-by-2025/a-46448111)

[Not_a_boffin]

Yet the Bundeswehr is planning on expanding to over 200k SP by 2025, whilst we continue to downsize.

Link (https://www.dw.com/en/germany-may-increase-troop-numbers-to-203000-by-2025/a-46448111)
That'll be the entire German armed forces, not their army. And from memory also includes their equivalent of DE&S.


​​​

[trim it out]

That'll be the entire German armed forces, not their army. And from memory also includes their equivalent of DE&S.


​​​
True, they're over 260k already if you include their civilian contingent. Their total SP figures are roughly the same as ours at c185k but the point is they are expanding, we are not. I'm lead to believe there are people hanging out to join the British forces but are failed by the recruiting system, while at the other end people are hanging out to get out because the offer is getting worse and worse, which is playing to the MOD plan of downsizing through natural wastage.

[Not_a_boffin]

True, they're over 260k already if you include their civilian contingent. Their total SP figures are roughly the same as ours at c185k but the point is they are expanding, we are not. I'm lead to believe there are people hanging out to join the British forces but are failed by the recruiting system, while at the other end people are hanging out to get out because the offer is getting worse and worse, which is playing to the MOD plan of downsizing through natural wastage.
To which we should be wondering why the RN and RAF (and DE&S!) are not being expanded, instead of engaging in cap badge fantasies.

And quite rightly addressing the offer....

[ORAC]

https://x.com/gabriel64869839/status/1760326429953151360?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Chief of Air Staff provides some early news ahead of Uncrewed Platforms Strategy paper.

UK identifies 3 tiers: Tier 1 being small and sacrificial systems, 2 middle-ground "expendable", 3 as the larger drones we want to see coming back to base.

Focus right now is on Tier 1.

CAS says he expects to have, within a year, an operationally useable Tier 1 adjunct drone capability. In particular, speaking to the Defence Committee, he mentions electronic warfare payloads to suppress enemy air defences and help Typhoon operate in high risk areas.

This sounds very much in tune with the Royal Navy's Project VAMPIRE, which wants to field that kind of adjunct capability through spiral development of the Banshee from a pure threat-simulation target drone to a decoy and ISR platform.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1214x521/image_e6b5e1435b16cacc550d0d13a4283c2ae11bc3d5.png

We have just in these last few days received evidence of Banshee popping up in Ukraine, by the way, reportedly carrying explosive making it a strike system. We have limited visibility, for obvious reason, of just how much is going on.

https://t.co/yWmYjF6MRK

​​​​​​​

[ORAC]

👀👀👀👀

https://x.com/pinstripedline/status/1760771156456399147?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Sir Humphrey:

If you understand the language of probability, then this is a genuinely terrifying tweet.

​​​​​​​https://x.com/dissident_the/status/1757817551218692516?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


That was a first.

Meeting today in which there was explicit mention of the need to plan for what to do if the "lines are cut" with the US next year, or even late this year.

Realisation dawning in some quarters that this is now very much a "realistic possibility" at minimum.…

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1213x809/image_680b2ff818e42066cedc72a429d2b38e0f87edb1.png
​​​​​​​

[Asturias56]

Given the current U S poll numbers that's not unreasonable - a 40-50% that Trump gets in at which point all bets are off. There is nothing in his record to suggest he's a rational politician or even aone who has a fixed policy (even if irrational) - we're into the strange land of the individual mind set at any particular day or time.

[ORAC]

Long list of reasons for rejection.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/over-125000-applicants-rejected-from-british-army/

Over 125,000 applicants rejected from British Army

[Asturias56]

be interesting to see what the breakdown was on the Medical cases

IIRC it was reports from medical examinations in WW1 that kicked off the realisation of just how unhealthy most people were in the UK

[Lima Juliet]

Chief of Air Staff provides some early news ahead of Uncrewed Platforms Strategy paper.

UK identifies 3 tiers: Tier 1 being small and sacrificial systems, 2 middle-ground "expendable", 3 as the larger drones we want to see coming back to base.

Focus right now is on Tier 1.

CAS says he expects to have, within a year, an operationally useable Tier 1 adjunct drone capability. In particular, speaking to the Defence Committee, he mentions electronic warfare payloads to suppress enemy air defences and help Typhoon operate in high risk areas.

This sounds very much in tune with the Royal Navy's Project VAMPIRE, which wants to field that kind of adjunct capability through spiral development of the Banshee from a pure threat-simulation target drone to a decoy and ISR platform.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1214x521/image_e6b5e1435b16cacc550d0d13a4283c2ae11bc3d5.png

We have just in these last few days received evidence of Banshee popping up in Ukraine, by the way, reportedly carrying explosive making it a strike system. We have limited visibility, for obvious reason, of just how much is going on.

https://t.co/yWmYjF6MRK



​​​​​​​You can read or watch it all here: https://committees.parliament.uk/event/20627/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

[ORAC]

https://x.com/garethjennings3/status/1762440486483120414?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Speaking under the Chatham House Rule at #IMH24, an official says that #NMH "will be bought largely off the shelf, with UK bespoke modifications keep to an absolute minimum." Should mean speedy service entry, but flies in the face of DSIS which is meant to prioritise UK industry.

On DSIS, official says Rotary-Wing Refresh of which NMH is a part "cannot just be about the UK industrial base". Equally need for interoperability with allies, etc.

​​​​​​​Official stresses that decision to buy H145 to take the Cyprus Bell 412 and Brunei Bell 212 replacement out of #NMH will not impact Puma replacement numbers. "The two things are not linked. I can say there is absolutely no change to the [up to 44] number already put out."

[ORAC]

As pointed out, that makes a tilt rotor the required solution.

https://x.com/garethjennings3/status/1762499164628557907?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Interesting divergence from #France at @DefenceIQ #IMH24.

"Speed is not our priority [for future rotorcraft] - range is our priority".

​​​​​​​Probably lesson from operating across the Sahel region of northern Africa, which at about 3,200 km across is wider than Europe...

[rattman]

On DSIS, official says Rotary-Wing Refresh of which NMH is a part "cannot just be about the UK industrial base". Equally need for interoperability with allies, etc.

"

To me they are asking the wrong question, the question should be should we buy american or polish made blackhawks

[Not_a_boffin]

To me they are asking the wrong question, the question should be should we buy american or polish made blackhawks
There's a coven of purist system engineers who will burn you at the stake for the crime of solutioneering.

Ya heathen.

[ORAC]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-british-helicopter-programme-moves-into-next-phase/

New British helicopter programme moves into next phase

The next stage of the New Medium Helicopter (NMH) Programme has been announced by the Minister for Defence Procurement, James Cartlidge, today.

The Ministry of Defence say that the NMH Programme is an initiative to acquire a modern medium-lift support helicopter, which will deliver up to five rotary wing requirements using a single aircraft-type.

“This means that the platform will be able to undertake Defence tasks that were previously undertaken by up to five different aircraft types, streamlining our capabilities. This will improve efficiency and operational flexibility, positively impacting ongoing and future UK operational capability. Once in service, it will provide the Armed Forces with a new medium lift aircraft capable of operating in all environments in support of a broad spectrum of Defence tasks, from warfighting to humanitarian efforts and operations around the world.

It was announced at the International Military Helicopter conference in London today that the Invitation to Negotiate has been released, meaning the three NMH candidate suppliers – Airbus Helicopters UK, Leonardo Helicopters UK and Lockheed Martin UK – will now compile their bids to be evaluated by the Ministry of Defence to determine the winning bidder.”

The competition will be managed by Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) and proposals will be evaluated through 2025 when, subject to Government approvals, a contract award is anticipated.

Minister for Defence Procurement, James Cartlidge said:

“The New Medium Helicopter will provide essential support to our military operations, and we’re pleased to have reached this next important stage of the programme.

The programme’s competition includes essential criteria that are key to securing vital rotary wing Operational Independence, allowing us to respond swiftly to emerging threats in a highly contested world.”….

[rattman]

There's a coven of purist system engineers who will burn you at the stake for the crime of solutioneering.
Ya heathen.

Its got so many pros, off the top of my head,
uses same engines as your new apaches,
so many versions, want naval helicopter got the seahawk. (every hanger on a naval ship in compatable with them), want a SOF got the pavehawk, want a SAR got the Jayhawk,
Used by Aukus Allies
Used by 30 other countries
Thousands of airframes flying, billions in spare parts available where ever you go in the world

Negative. Umm guess you cant stand in the cabin (not really a negative but I have to put something)

[Bob Viking]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13133283/amp/jeremy-hunt-fury-budget-military-spending.html

Oh dear. No more money.

BV

[ORAC]

Not sure how this will feed across to AUKUS SSN, except perhaps as an XLUUV compartment….

https://x.com/navylookout/status/1763475878539911314?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


The Royal Navy’s future vision for the underwater battlespace.

​​​​​​​https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-navys-future-vision-for-the-underwater-battlespace/

[ORAC]

GB News…… 🙄

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1089x734/image_193e3b48af015da30b660bf79e851cf37803dc3c.png

[Mogwi]

Should have gone to Specsavers!

Mog

[artee]

The Royal Navy’s future vision for the underwater battlespace.

​​​​​​​https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-navys-future-vision-for-the-underwater-battlespace/

It looks like their Underwater F-35 is no longer part of the plan :)

Hat, coat...

[Davef68]

"Review" of new Chinook ER procurement plan. Reduction in numbers or cancellation? (It's already been pushed back - original plan was for 14 airframes)

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is to review its plan to acquire new Boeing H-47 Extended Range (ER) Chinook helicopters later in the first quarter (Q1) of 2024, ahead of any decision on final numbers.

Minister of State at the MoD James Cartlidge made the disclosure on 15 February, telling the House of Commons, “The Review Note for the Chinook extended range helicopter programme is due to be assessed by the MoD Investment Approvals Committee in quarter 1 2024, and will inform any future decisions affecting the current programme of record.”


https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/uk-to-review-chinook-buy-in-q1-2024

[Not_a_boffin]

"Review" of new Chinook ER procurement plan. Reduction in numbers or cancellation? (It's already been pushed back - original plan was for 14 airframes)




https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/uk-to-review-chinook-buy-in-q1-2024

Bit more explanation in the Oral Evidence session to the HCDC a week later - albeit polluted by Penfolds grandstanding.

committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14318/pdf/ (https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14318/pdf/)

Questions 178-184 for anyone interested.

[Davef68]

Bit more explanation in the Oral Evidence session to the HCDC a week later - albeit polluted by Penfolds grandstanding.

committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14318/pdf/ (https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14318/pdf/)

Questions 178-184 for anyone interested.

Thanks, hadn't seen that yet - he is a bit of a, well, lets just say 'character'

[ORAC]

This just the Army, or do the RAF and RN have a similar scheme? Assuming they can spare the people of course…..

https://x.com/pinstripedline/status/1764741608103186590?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Great chance for serving soldiers to get the British Army to pay for your academic career development - people in civvy street pay thousands for training like this!

​​​​​​​https://x.com/lsw_rmas/status/1764719302224015446?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Got a defence related area you want to study in depth?? For serving British Army soldiers and officers latest round of funded External Placements (Academic) starting in 25/26 now out - see ACO 2024/001 - deadline 10 June 24….

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1213x1498/image_e3b05b1c099faed4827ee3df199edffe1862213e.png
​​​​​​​

[SLXOwft]

Thanks, hadn't seen that yet - he is a bit of a, well, lets just say 'character'

I would use something more 'earthy'. Though I think he may be right about the money, and Lt Gen Magowan may have got his currencies mixed up, as I am pretty sure the announced deal was for USD 1.96 billion, which is GBP 1.54 billion at today's rate.

If airframes introduced the same number of years ago as the oldest current Chinooks were were in service at the time the RN frontline squadrons would have been using updated Swordfish and the RAF's Ansons and Fairey Hendons. Wanting to replace what I assume are pretty tired aircraft with a modern more capabable version seems very sensible, 14 at USD or GCP 1.5 Billion appears a pretty good deal when the original FMS announcement was 16 at USD 3.5 Billion.

I assume that the Chinook ER purchase was/is intended to support 7 Squadrons SF commitments and as Lt Gen Magowan said is dependent on HMG requiring a particular subset of potential tasking.

My understanding after the 2021 review, was that the total force was to reduce to 51. 23 older airframes were to go: 9 withdrawals with out replacement, and 14 to be replaced by the ERs. Not quite sure how the numbers stack up; this year started with 27 airframes that were originally HC.1s but two have since been reported as wfu. Granted they have been upgraded, but they all first flew between 1980 and 1985. Apparently the move of ZA718 "BN" to RAFM Cosford was the first of the 9, another three have been reported as wfu but they include two which first flew in 1997 & 1998 which were delivered as HC.2s.

[ORAC]

https://x.com/pinstripedline/status/1765110849016840539?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


Big Times scoop here- 216 Sqn, reformed in 2020 to trial drones, has completed no trials, made no recommendations, and has just 7 full & part time military personnel.

Sharp contrast to other nations experiences and outcomes.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8251e7bb-4b41-43ca-984d-2ee6742051db?shareToken=cbc367c0353aec5b8d6d5bf7fdfb03b7

​​​​​​​

[artee]

Big Times scoop here- 216 Sqn, reformed in 2020 to trial drones, has completed no trials, made no recommendations, and has just 7 full & part time military personnel.

Sharp contrast to other nations experiences and outcomes.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8251e7bb-4b41-43ca-984d-2ee6742051db?shareToken=cbc367c0353aec5b8d6d5bf7fdfb03b7

​​​​​​​
From The Times article
“The effectiveness of UK armed forces comes from our state of the art equipment operated by our exceptional personnel and cannot be judged solely by numbers of platforms or people.”

Is that a new way of saying non-quantity has a quality of its own?

[ORAC]

https://www.twz.com/land/british-army-paratroopers-get-computerized-rifle-sights-to-shoot-down-drones

British Army Paratroopers Get Computerized Rifle Sights To Shoot Down Drones

[Davef68]

I would use something more 'earthy'. Though I think he may be right about the money, and Lt Gen Magowan may have got his currencies mixed up, as I am pretty sure the announced deal was for USD 1.96 billion, which is GBP 1.54 billion at today's rate.


It was originally announced in May 2021 as 1.4 billion GBP but later an extra £300m added to it due to delays. . The original 2018 FMS approval (for 16 airframes) quoted $3.5 billion!!!


I assume that the Chinook ER purchase was/is intended to support 7 Squadrons SF commitments and as Lt Gen Magowan said is dependent on HMG requiring a particular subset of potential tasking.


Trying to get dedicated specialist SF Chinooks has been ongoing since the HC3 order (and subsequent debacle) - the exact profile of the Chinook ER hasn't been public revealed, but something similar to the MH-47G has been speculated.

[NutLoose]

Time to dust down those old Andover... VC10.. internal tanks again ;)

[SLXOwft]

- the exact profile of the Chinook ER hasn't been public revealed, but something similar to the MH-47G has been speculated.

And IMO nor should it be, except in the most general terms. I did read somewhere it won't be fitted with a refuelling probe.

One does wonder what, beyond two airframes and their corresponding quantities of the equipment listed, what has been dropped from the list in the FMS request (and anything not listed) to get the massive price reduction.

The Government of United Kingdom has requested a possible sale of sixteen (16) H-47 Chinook (Extended Range) helicopters; thirty-six (36) T-55-GA-714A engines (32 installed, 4 spares); forty-eight (48) embedded GPS inertial navigation units (32 installed, 16 spares); twenty (20) common missile warning systems (16 installed, 4 spares); twenty-two (22) radio-frequency countermeasures (16 installed, 6 spares); nineteen (19) multi-mode radars (16 installed, 3 spares); nineteen (19) electro-optical sensor systems (16 installed, 3 spares); forty (40) M-134D-T mini* guns, plus mounts and tools (32 installed, 8 spares); and forty (40) M240H machine guns, plus mounts and tools (32 installed, 8 spares). This sale also includes communications equipment; navigation equipment; aircraft survivability equipment; initial training equipment and services; synthetic training equipment; support package including spares and repair parts; special tools and test equipment; aviation ground support equipment; safety and air worthiness certification; technical support; maintenance support; technical and aircrew publications; mission planning system equipment and support; and, project management and governance; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistic and program support. Total estimated cost is $3.5 billion.


Penfold and his ilk's beef with the ER order appears to be a lack of UK pork to counterbalance the money being spent with a US corporation. He clearly needs someone to explain to him, in words of one syllable, the additional costs of having multiple types for one capability and the cost inflation and delays related to fitting non-standard UK kit to an existing certified type. (And don't let on the Germans have customer specific mods to their order of 60 CH-47Fs) https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/germany-ch-47f-chinook-helicopters

The original FMS stated 'The principal contractor of this sale will be Boeing Defense and Space, Ridley Park, PA. There is no known offset agreement associated with this proposed sale.'

Boeing's UK website states there are '45 UK suppliers, delivering for the global fleet and supporting UK sustainment and training.' but gives no value to the contribuition.

The company's evidence to the HCDC's Future Aviation Capabilities Enquiry dated 31 October 2023 can be downloaded from here https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/126234/pdf/

[Asturias56]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68499693Labour now intends to pay for its NHS and school breakfast plans through future savings to public spending if it wins power, Rachel Reeves has said.

The party had planned to fund the flagship policies by replacing the UK's current "non-dom" tax regime. But Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced the same move at Wednesday's Budget, to fund a cut to National Insurance. His Labour counterpart Ms Reeves has admitted it will force her to tweak her own plans.

Speaking to the BBC, she said Labour would now "go through every pound" in the government's spending plans to fund the policies. "But we will find that money, because it is a national priority, and its is a Labour priority," she added.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Ms Reeves signalled Labour now plans to fund their plans through savings to future government spending, rather than an alternative tax rise.

"We will identify the savings we can make to fund this," she said, underlining the party's election manifesto would be "fully costed and fully funded".

But she did not offer further details, adding the party would first need to go through the government's plans in an "orderly way" before it would be in a position to do so.

[Davef68]

And IMO nor should it be, except in the most general terms. I did read somewhere it won't be fitted with a refuelling probe.


No, although FMS details scream 'MH57G' in all but name (IIRC there is a block on exporting the 'G', so with a few modifications Chinook ER might be a way round that). As originally delivered, I think HC3 was fitted for, but not with RF probe. one may have briefly carried a probe.

One does wonder what, beyond two airframes and their corresponding quantities of the equipment listed, what has been dropped from the list in the FMS request (and anything not listed) to get the massive price reduction.

I do wonder if the £1.4 billion is the airframe acquisition cost and not the support and through life costs.


Penfold and his ilk's beef with the ER order appears to be a lack of UK pork to counterbalance the money being spent with a US corporation. He clearly needs someone to explain to him, in words of one syllable, the additional costs of having multiple types for one capability and the cost inflation and delays related to fitting non-standard UK kit to an existing certified type.

He seems to have a thing about Boeing, but they are the company that has the toys we want. The irony that the Boeing project that's worst preforming in terms of delay (Wedgetail) is the one with the most UK offset appears lost on him (although fingers are pointed at Boeing over that)

[ORAC]

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Ms Reeves signalled Labour now plans to fund their plans through savings to future government spending, rather than an alternative tax rise.


The government has already incorporated defence cuts, so Labour would have to add more on top…

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1088x686/image_eb2167eb42c487368f9299ff70904c121ea8e47a.png
​​​​​​​

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1446x678/image_00326b5071330f3abf76ea6a66d530828cf8e9d8.png

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1484x676/image_662d0a5ed14a6a75e7199ff4c316472b513c33a1.png

[Not_a_boffin]

That second table perfectly demonstrates why the NHS in current form is unsustainable. The RDEL budget - essentially people and consumables for NHS England alone is larger than all the other departments combined by at least 30%.

Given that the Treasury hates RDEL because it has no balance sheet value, that gives you an idea of the scale of the problem.

[SLXOwft]

Am I just not understanding or are there unannounced defence cuts planned as highlighted by ORAC? I see a 6.3% cut in Defence planned RDEL between 2023-24 and 2024-25, and a 1.6% cut in CDEL. £2.3Billion in total, so bang goes the second trance of the £5 billion over two years.

To quote the (right leaning) IFS via Civil Service World (https://www.civilserviceworld.com/news/article/spring-budget-unprotected-departments-face-cuts-of-up-to-35)Defence-spending pledge "not worth the paper it's written on"

Yesterday's budget saw Hunt set out a handful of aspirational pledges. They included floating the idea that a future Conservative government might abolish National Insurance contributions and promising defence spending would rise to 2.5% of gross domestic product from the current 2% "as soon as economic conditions allow".

IFS director Paul Johnson said today that Hunt's stance on defence spending was remarkable.

"Economic conditions allowed a £10bn cut in NICs this year. So they could have allowed a £10bn increase in defence spending instead," he said. "That would have just about met the target. Actions speak louder than words."

Johnson said the aspiration to abolish National Insurance was as unrealistic as the restated defence-spending stance.

"This pledge to cut taxes by more than £40bn goes in the same bucket as pledges to increase defence spending – not worth the paper its written on unless accompanied by some sense of how it will be afforded," he said.

<Rant> IMO any sensible party would be suggesting raising the personal allowance to c. 20k and introducing a >=30% band at Median Income level, settting the higher threshold at the 90th Income Centile, substantially reducing the starting rate for additional rate, adjusting higher and additional rates to fund a 2% overall rise in income tax and NI take, and scrapping the NI upper earnings limit and also the allowance taper to get rid of the 60% trap,. </Rant>

[ORAC]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-appears-to-cut-defence-budget-during-war-in-europe/

Britain appears to cut defence budget during war in Europe

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubacc/451/summary.html

Public Accounts Committee, Nineteenth Report - MoD Equipment Plan 2023–2033

Summary

This year’s Equipment Plan (the Plan) reveals that there is a £16.9 billion deficit between the Ministry of Defence’s (the MoD’s) capability requirements and its budget, despite the MoD having increased the Plan’s budget by £46.3 billion. This is the largest funding deficit in any of the 12 Plans the MoD has published since 2012. It is also a marked deterioration in the reported financial position since last year’s Plan, which the MoD judged to be affordable but this Committee concluded was not and that is characterised by optimism bias. The real deficit, however, is even larger, because some parts of the Armed Forces have not included costs for all the capabilities government expects the MoD to provide, but only those they can afford. The Army, for example, could need around £12 billion more to fund all the capabilities the government seeks.

The MoD has not had the discipline to balance its budget by making the difficult choices about which equipment programmes it can and cannot afford. Instead, it has opted to assume—or perhaps, given the uncertainty, hope—that fiscal and economic circumstances will improve during the next ten years so that government will fulfil its aspiration to annually spend 2.5% of GDP on defence. This, combined with the marked deterioration in the Plan’s affordability, means that the MoD has not credibly demonstrated to Parliament how it will manage its funding to deliver the military capabilities that government wants…..

[Asturias56]

I think you could have written that any time in the last 50 years - the politicians won't face the facts

[Asturias56]

"<Rant> IMO any sensible party would be suggesting raising the personal allowance to c. 20k and introducing a >=30% band at Median Income level, settting the higher threshold at the 90th Income Centile, substantially reducing the starting rate for additional rate, adjusting higher and additional rates to fund a 2% overall rise in income tax and NI take, and scrapping the NI upper earnings limit and also the allowance taper to get rid of the 60% trap,. </Rant>"

The whole questions of "bands " is so Victorian - there is nothing to stop them having a smooth curve for tax and benefits accessible through an app on your phone. Cut out the "cliffs" and ridiculous changes in tax/benefits when you make one extra quid......................

[ORAC]

The Times:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1027x684/image_894124a2947f3ac547cfdebbfbb517a72f37d6fd.jpeg

[dagenham]

"<Rant> IMO any sensible party would be suggesting raising the personal allowance to c. 20k and introducing a >=30% band at Median Income level, settting the higher threshold at the 90th Income Centile, substantially reducing the starting rate for additional rate, adjusting higher and additional rates to fund a 2% overall rise in income tax and NI take, and scrapping the NI upper earnings limit and also the allowance taper to get rid of the 60% trap,. </Rant>"

The whole questions of "bands " is so Victorian - there is nothing to stop them having a smooth curve for tax and benefits accessible through an app on your phone. Cut out the "cliffs" and ridiculous changes in tax/benefits when you make one extra quid......................


taxing the very rich never pays off… when Gordon brown cut the super tax - tax take went up as it is not worth going through convoluted tax vehicles….. the one thing everyone should be worried about is the size of the pension pot for the nhs and council. Nearly two pennies in five of your council tax goes on pension payments to council staff. You imagine with doctors getting 30 odd percent pay rise what that is going to do to the public purse once the 20 percent nhs contribution to pension is factored in, let alonecthe gold plated inflation rises etc

[ORAC]

https://htsf.substack.com/p/breaking-ranks-or-firing-blanks-tory?utm_campaign=post&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Breaking ranks or firing blanks? Tory calls for Defence spending hike unheeded

Why is UK strategic thinking paralysed by peacetime fiscal rules? Here's three alternative scenarios...

[Mil-26Man]

Chinooks confirmed by Shapps...

https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1768309072044998982?t=YdNjxT2ik-qMDzeJdQgRkQ&s=19

[Davef68]

Chinooks confirmed by Shapps...

https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1768309072044998982?t=YdNjxT2ik-qMDzeJdQgRkQ&s=19

That's good news. The devil will be in the detail (Timelines etc)

[SLXOwft]

Through successful negotiations between MOD’s procurement arm - Defence Equipment & Support - and the US Government, the UK has reduced costs for elements of the programme by more than £300 million, ensuring value for money whilst providing our armed forces with a cutting-edge heavy lift capability.

Doesn't reduced costs imply reduced capability for a new acquisition? And how does the circa 10% fall in the value of GBP v USD factor in? Something that had escaped me until earlier this year was that US Special Operations Command was the contracting party with Boeing for the 14 ERs for the UK FMS.

...which will pump an estimated £151 million into the UK economy.
(...)
As part of the deal, UK companies will also produce components critical for manufacturing and maintaining the Chinooks, supporting jobs in areas such as aircraft avionics and electric power, supporting skills development and wider UK industry.

Probably not enough to make Penfold happy.

Beyond the Chinook, the Government’s extensive negotiations with United States has helped to enshrine critical reforms into law that will benefit the UK. These laws will increase the speed and predictability of military procurement from the US going forward, and will strengthen shared partnerships like AUKUS through technology sharing.

Not sure that is politic, given the isolationist tendancies rampant in much of the GOP.

Anyway, I look forward to having them rattle my windows in the (hopefully) no too distant future. And hearing if the F Block II is quieter.:E

[Martin the Martian]

Meanwhile Puma plods on.

[ORAC]

https://x.com/gabriel64869839/status/1773049189611479449?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


“RAF's Autonomous Collaborative Platform strategy paper is out. As CAS had anticipated, first range of Tier 1 (attritable) collaborative drones is to be operational by the end of this year. We might have one name, too: AUKLET, mentioned alongside BANSHEE.

As far as i'm concerned, AUKLET is new; don't know what shape it might have. BANSHEE, of course, is known to be the base for the Royal Navy's own project VAMPIRE and has been developed in interesting ways, including for Strike use, and is already in Ukraine too”.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66019fa8f1d3a0666832acfc/RAF_Autonomous_Collaborative_Platform_Strategy.pdf

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1440x618/image_b8b031106d93e55fab5d18d5a16ce9af433f2fa6.png
​​​​​​​

[ORAC]

https://x.com/gabriel64869839/status/1778354399926014153?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

Very interesting: Spain's air force is looking for contractor support for BRIMSTONE missiles, but also for SPEAR 3. As far as we know, that would make Spain the first SPEAR 3 customer outside of the UK……

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/890x712/image_348891d61a32c91ff35743e7e22f858ea2e52d21.png
​​​​​​​

[frodo_monkey]

Very interesting: Spain's air force is looking for contractor support for BRIMSTONE missiles, but also for SPEAR 3. As far as we know, that would make Spain the first SPEAR 3 customer outside of the UK……

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/890x712/image_348891d61a32c91ff35743e7e22f858ea2e52d21.png


Fake news, they’ve not even bought something for it to be employed from yet…

[downsizer]

Have they even signed a contract for thier Brimstone yet?

[frodo_monkey]

Have they even signed a contract for thier Brimstone yet?

No, not even close.

[rattman]

So poorly paid that you have to steal electronics to order

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/royal-navy-arrest-ipads-games-b2519260.html

[Stuck On The Ground]

So poorly paid that you have to steal electronics to order

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/royal-navy-arrest-ipads-games-b2519260.html

I don’t think their salary is an excuse for this alleged behaviour.

[Asturias56]

Flogging military kit etc out the back door is as old as armies themselves I think you'll find

[SLXOwft]

Rishi Sunak has promised billions more for defence to counter threats from "an axis of authoritarian states".

The prime minister said UK military spending would rise to 2.5% of national income by 2030, in a move that hardens a previous spending pledge.
He stressed the UK was "not on the brink of war" but claimed the extra money would put the country's defence industry "on a war footing".
Labour is also committed to a 2.5% target when economic conditions allow.
Labour's shadow defence secretary John Healey said the party "wants to see a fully funded plan" to reach this level, but he said the Tories had "shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted on defence".
He said Labour would review resources for the armed forces within a year of taking office, if it wins the general election later this year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68880171

I refer members to my earlier statements: post 1320 (https://www.pprune.org/11574656-post1320.html)and F35 II thread post 776 (https://www.pprune.org/11591660-post776.html)

[Asturias56]

Well half the money is apparently going to come from cutting civil servants" - an aspiration that's been around longer than I've been alive..............

It just never happens

[ORAC]

It’s just politics before the next general election.

There are no planned additional funds in this year’s defence budget, so the promised increases will have to be funded by the incoming Labour government, leaving them the problem of where the funds will come from.

Labour shadow ministers have been claiming for months they will match Sunak’s vow to boost defence spending, but both parties have hedged their promises by adding “as soon resources allow”.

By actually committing the money in spending plans Labour will go into the election campaign having to either commit to funding the programme or dodging the question which the Conservatives will exploit.

[Not_a_boffin]

Well half the money is apparently going to come from cutting civil servants" - an aspiration that's been around longer than I've been alive..............

It just never happens
Au contraire. It does happen - in MOD anyway.

Trouble is, the ones that leave are the ones that know what they're doing and how to make the system work.

[Asturias56]

I agree - same as "voluntary redundancy" in the private sector - all the best take the package because they can get a job elsewhere and you're left with ... the less promising.

But its like "efficiency savings" trotted out every time they don't want to say what they're really going to slash

[Biggus]

Regarding Sunak's promise/pledge to increase defence spending, I would offer the following observations.

Firstly, as others have already said, he won't be Prime Minister from about September 2024 onward, so he won't have to deliver on anything he says.

Secondly, the articles with more detail seem to talk about the extra expenditure being on MUNITIONS. There is talk of more missiles, shells, bombs, etc.

I've seen nothing about increasing the size of the Army, buying more aircraft, building more ships.

While welcome/necessary, the purchase of more munitions will do little more than replace stock given to Ukraine, and increase our arsenal size to the point where we can fight a full blown war for more than 3 weeks.

[ORAC]

Well we have answer to that question - Labour are refusing to commit to increase the defence budget and will, instead, use the funds to nationalise the railways….


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x1683/image_8ada6e55688cbd9e0071ed2ce852c26f10ab9a83.png

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x1356/image_ca859af979c519a3043d216838c07d156f1ae8d5.png
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x1303/image_be9b23bbf1a15ded671f2a7c402969900a215c6a.png

[ORAC]

https://x.com/benzaranko/status/1782891398615679318?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


It's only a "£75 billion increase" over 6 years if you assume that spending would otherwise have been frozen in cash terms for 6 years - i.e. only if the government was, until today, planning to breach its NATO commitments. This is such an unhelpful way to present the figures.

To get the £75 billion number, the government has assumed a baseline with spending frozen in cash terms and then added up all of the differences. If you instead assume a baseline of spending frozen as a % GDP, it's an extra £20 billion over 6 years. Details here.

To make matters worse, when briefing the press the government said that this would "only" cost £4.4 billion in 2028/29. That assumes a baseline of 2.3% of GDP and so is inconsistent with the £75 billion number. They're just picking whichever baseline suits best.

​​​​​​​A plea to whoever writes these press releases and social media posts:

1) stop using dodgy baselines
2) stop adding up the "extra" spending over an arbitrary period
3) if you can't do 1) and 2), at least be internally consistent..

[NutLoose]

So the U.K. has selected the replacement for the AS-90 artillery we sent to Ukraine, it is a German gunned version of the Boxer which we operate at the moment, it does seem an odd choice in that we have purchased 14 Swedish Archer systems, I wonder if they will be a short term backfill now? Firing up to 9 rounds per minute for the new system will soon eat through the 30 rounds it carries,
It also says develop, so is probably not off the shelf again, and it’s not tracked either.

The UK and Germany have unveiled plans to jointly develop the Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155mm Wheeled Artillery System (RCH 155), which will be mounted on Boxer armoured vehicles.on Boxer armoured vehicles.
This announcement was made during a meeting between Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin.

The new-built artillery systems will be constructed in both the UK and Germany, promising to bolster job creation and strengthen the defence manufacturing sectors of both nations, according to the Ministry of Defence.

The collaboration comes at a crucial time as Europe faces renewed security challenges. The system is designed to provide the armed forces of both countries with a significant enhancement in ground warfare capabilities.

Prime Minister Sunak spoke of the importance of the partnership, stating, “The UK and Germany are European powerhouses. Together, we are stronger – whether that is defending against Russian aggression or driving economic growth and technological advance. Today we are opening a new chapter in our relationship, one that will make us safer and more prosperous. At this dangerous moment for the world, the UK and Germany are standing side by side to preserve security and prosperity at home and across our continent.”



https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-to-purchase-boxer-based-rch155-artillery-systems/

[rattman]

So the U.K. has selected the replacement for the AS-90 artillery we sent to Ukraine, it is a German gunned version of the Boxer which we operate at the moment, it does seem an odd choice in that we have purchased 14 Swedish Archer systems, I wonder if they will be a short term backfill now?

They were an interim replacement for the AS-90, they were selected because they were available now, they were taken from reserve stocks of system. From day one were they going to be replaced by something, prime candidates were K9, Pz2000 or RCH155

[anson harris]

I love that the Maily Telegraph's response isn't to in any way scrutinise the facts of what's been announced, or to mention that this was announced by Johnson in 2022, after which, to gasps of shock from everyone, defence spending reduced. Instead it's to somehow suggest that everything is Labour's fault. Utterly delusional...

[ORAC]

https://x.com/ukdefjournal/status/1783408339323322375?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


​​​​​​​QinetiQ has successfully trialled the UK’s first Crewed-Uncrewed-Teaming demonstration between a crewed aircraft and an autonomous jet drone.

The trial – which took place in collaboration with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), the Royal Navy and the Air and Space Warfare Centre (ASWC) - saw a QinetiQ jet aircraft take off from Ministry of Defence (MOD) site Boscombe Down in Salisbury, while a modified Banshee Jet 80 drone was launched from the MOD Hebrides range, off the north-west coast of Scotland.

Commodore Steve Bolton, Deputy Director Aviation Programmes & Futures, said:

"I am delighted with the results of this trial. The development of Crewed–Uncrewed Teaming, as one of the Royal Navy’s many aviation transformation initiatives, seeks to embrace the onset of autonomy and Human Machine Teaming, to expand our aviation combat mass and operational advantage at sea."

[mahogany bob]

Today, America prizes air superiority in its approach to warfare, but there's a growing sentiment among many within the defense apparatus that dogfights, or close-quarters air-air combat are things of the past

Given that dogfights are increasingly unlikely I find it difficult to be persuaded that small expensive agile fighters - F35 - are needed.

Surely larger less agile ( cheaper ) still stealthy aircraft carrying more weapons and sensors -and able to stay on task for much longer - could win the over the horizon air battle and thus achieve air superiority ?

They could also keep further away from the ever more sophisticated ground to air defences?

Hopefully great minds are worrying about this ( and the Question of whether drones can replace manned aircraft ) but with money short and an increase in defence spending looming the more discussion on defence expenditure the better.

I fear that inter service rivalry ( Navy Carriers for instance ) and selfish interests still influence important and costly decisions.

Put this on F35 thread also - sorry for repetition but I am sure that many Army and Navy big ticket future purchases are worthy of maximum discussion before the money is spent!

[ORAC]

Several points for you to consider.

In peacetime the main task is to intercept, identify and escort intruders, lost airliners etc - a task best served by an interceptor sized aircraft.

In war BVR can be constrained by ROE meaning a possible target has to be identified, either visually or by other means; and if they are hostile a bomber sized aircraft will be detected, identified by them first if they are smaller and able to give their weapon a height and speed advantage.

Bigger means less numbers and if the enem6 split up, use height splits, ECM etc the chances of a single large missile carrier achieving kills plummets.

“Missileer” aircraft were looked at during the Cold War by the USN* and the RAF briefly considered a Vulcan carrying Phoenix or Sea Dart** missiles etc, but none proceeded past the concept stage once modelling showed they lost out vs more fighters.

The US NGAD and FA-XX will be larger to be able to deal with trans-pacific ranges and mother aircraft carrying CCAs to the combat zone may appear, but I don’t see Missileer sun the mix.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer

** https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a-vulcan-goes-bear-hunting-and-foxbats-and-backfires-the-vulcan-adv.17083/

[Mil-26Man]

Given that dogfights are increasingly unlikely I find it difficult to be persuaded that small expensive agile fighters - F35 - are needed.

Surely larger less agile ( cheaper ) still stealthy aircraft carrying more weapons and sensors -and able to stay on task for much longer - could win the over the horizon air battle and thus achieve air superiority ?

They could also keep further away from the ever more sophisticated ground to air defences?

Hopefully great minds are worrying about this

You might not be too far off the money...

Gareth Jennings on X: "Another perhaps more interesting nugget is that we might not be too far off getting a rendering/model of the actual Tempest demonstrator, rather than the impressions to date. No details, but one official noting the airframe "is properly massive!" 4/4 https://t.co/gwmskEaWqQ" / X (twitter.com)

[ORAC]

But you are looking at most at a single seat F-15 or SU-27 size aircraft, not a missileer.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/479x326/image_77fa5c66f215cc7eb9deecc9d0a2fc22ea71a484.jpeg

[mahogany bob]

ORAC

In peacetime the main task is to intercept, identify and escort intruders, lost airliners etc - a task best served by an interceptor sized aircraft.

understood but we have the Typhoon for this task

[ORAC]

understood but we have the Typhoon for this task Typhoon was never planned as the Tornado F3 replacement, it was designed as the AST 403 Jaguar/Harrier replacement, but became the F3 replacement when they were retired and they were already on order. The RAF really wanted a long range 2 seat interceptor for over ocean intercepts.

The Tempest is sized for the long range interceptor role both for the UK, and because that is also exactly what Japan is interested in acquiring, so its size reflects the original role rather than that of the Eurofighter as a CR dogfighter.

[melmothtw]

Typhoon was never planned as the Tornado F3 replacement

Er, it absolutely was. The Tornado may have been a pure interceptor rather than a 'proper' fighter, but that was more a limitation of the airframe than a design requirement.

[Martin the Martian]

By the late 1980s Typhoon was going to replace the last four Phantom squadrons (Wattisham and Wildenrath) and the Coltishall Jags. By the time it was available the Phantoms had long gone so it became a Tornado F.3 replacement by default.

How old is that list of high and low capable fighters? I think the F-111 is somewhat out of place, bearing in mind it hasn't been in service for years and since they cancelled the F-111B it never had an air to air role.

[ORAC]

It’s old but was just used to show comparable size.

I don’t think people realise how large an aircraft such as a SU-27 is, I remember the first time I walked underneath one without having to bend down….


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/780x1050/rxligxcuvmz61_6fae8a0c0a4c42b7457329a1129b2f810dc3b573.jpg

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x720/image_8edbd3e026254a64dbc5a7f6bb3dccdeff29d288.jpeg

[Asturias56]

Today's Times

Sir,
Rishi Sunak describes the increase in defence spending as putting Britain on a “war footing”. In reality it is more like a slow reversal of the extensive defence cuts that have occurred since 2010. Moreover, the statement that this will result in an increase in funding of £75 billion over the next six years is disingenuous. This year Britain will spend about £64 billion on defence, 2.3 per cent of GDP, so simple maths indicates that an increase to 2.5 per cent will not get anywhere near the overall increase in expenditure that the government claims.
Rear Admiral (ret’d) Philip Mathias
Southsea, Hants

[Jackonicko]

But you are looking at most at a single seat F-15 or SU-27 size aircraft, not a missileer.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/479x326/image_77fa5c66f215cc7eb9deecc9d0a2fc22ea71a484.jpeg

That shows size, NOT capability.

[ORAC]

It was only used as a guide to size, as stated…

[SLXOwft]

I understand it comes from a early 2000's source touting F-22 for Australia v the proposed JSF (despite the 1998 congressional export ban) which probably accounts for the F-111. This was when the production run of the mighty balloon killer:E was to be 750 and the FB-22 was still a possibility. Also it predated the RAAF's interim replacement of F-111C with the Super Bug hence F/A-18A as a comparator.

I thought extreme agility plus low frontal RCS were supposed to be the SU-57's selling points and coupled with the R-37 it is designed for the role MB suggests, firing from extreme range behind its own SAM defences and sensor screen. Development of countermeasures particularly to disrupt mid-course updates and the seeker to limit the NEZ and means to take out the missile not the platform become the development goal. But AFAIK the monster only carries 4 AAMs.

Aren't AIM-260 JATM / LREW / Meteor and their Chinese equivalents intended to be used in a similar role on a variety of platforms? For Meteor this includes Typhoon, Rafale, Grippen and by 2027(hmm) F-35. But as ORAC says ROE (particularly Western ones) are likely to rule out any advantages of firing at extreme range, except in all out peer-to-peer conflict.

[Asturias56]

Todays Times Business pages
Empty defence spending promises are a shot in the dark - The government’s announcement was misleading and opaque and does nobody any favours

Paul Johnson (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/profile/paul-johnson) director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies

Last week the prime minister committed to increase defence spending to 2.5 per cent of national income by 2030. I got intensely irritated. . What annoyed me was not the commitment, either. It was all about the misleading and opaque way in which the additional spending was presented. When it wanted to make it look big, the government claimed it would boost spending by £75 billion; when it wanted to appear fiscally responsible, it claimed it would be cheap as chips (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-says-spending-billions-more-on-defence-wont-stop-tax-cuts-tw39bnvdx), costing only £4.4 billion in 2028-29 and easily paid for by undoing some of the recent jump in civil service numbers.

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes, or even the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to see that there might be something not quite consistent about these claims. Quite obviously, you can’t increase spending by £75 billion at a cost of £4.4 billion. What on earth is going on?

In brief. You get to £75 billion by assuming defence spending is frozen in cash terms every year between now and 2030. Then you look at the difference each year between that flat cash number and what you’d spend on a path to 2.5 per cent of GDP. Then you add up all of the differences. Hey presto, you get £75 billion of additional spending. This is an old trick, of which Gordon Brown was the great master. That is no excuse. The numbers that result are essentially meaningless. What made the use of this trick particularly remarkable was the accompanying and clearly inconsistent claim that the policy would cost hardly anything. If you want a small number, you don’t assume that defence spending would otherwise stay flat in cash terms. Rather, you compare your policy with a baseline in which defence spending remains at its present level of 2.3 per cent of national income. If you assume that most of the spending would have happened anyway, then getting it up to 2.5 per cent by 2030 does, indeed, look rather cheap.

Reversing the direction of travel may be necessary, but it is going to be painful. Jeremy Hunt has said that he wants total spending on public services to rise by 1 per cent per year over the next five years. Given commitments on health, childcare, overseas aid and defence, this would imply sharp spending cuts for many public services. More money for defence means even sharper cuts. A first pass at the numbers suggests that this new commitment could mean the cuts reach 4 per cent a year for a range of public services. That is, frankly, implausible.

I’m not going to let the opposition off the hook. It has committed to raising defence spending to the same 2.5 per cent of national income when conditions allow. That is a literally meaningless commitment. “Conditions” will depend on whether, for example, it reverses the £20 billion national insurance cut we have just enjoyed. If Labour does that, then conditions will allow immediately. More importantly, conditions depend on what its other priorities are. Would defence spending really trump demands from the NHS, schools, welfare and everything else? Labour has been exactly as opaque as the government over how it would prioritise within the desperately hard budget constraints it will face if it assumes office.

A commitment to spend 2.5 per cent of national income on defence is a serious, significant and costly statement of intent. It should be treated as such by all of us, by our enemies and by our allies. Playing these sorts of games with the announcement makes one wonder quite how seriously our government takes it.

[ORAC]

https://x.com/garethjennings3/status/1785713473718034704?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

Apropos of nothing, Germany has 82 medium-lift helicopters while the UK is tying itself in knots over trying to acquire "up to 44", and falling well well short of that number it seems.

Seems that the number of helicopters being sought through the UK's NMH programme has fallen even further than the quantity reported by @Helofresh - now sits at 23-32 sources indicate.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/minimum-quantity-sought-through-new-medium-helicopter-tender-falls-further-sources-indicate/158096.article

[pr00ne]

Apropos of nothing, Germany has 82 medium-lift helicopters while the UK is tying itself in knots over trying to acquire "up to 44", and falling well well short of that number it seems.

Seems that the number of helicopters being sought through the UK's NMH programme has fallen even further than the quantity reported by @Helofresh - now sits at 23-32 sources indicate.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/minimum-quantity-sought-through-new-medium-helicopter-tender-falls-further-sources-indicate/158096.article

Well, the NMH is now only a Puma replacement, and there are only 23 of them.

[Woodsy2417]

Sunak's commitment to 2.5% GDP by 2030 is politics pure and simple as the chances of him being in power in 2030 are negligible. As my grandmother used to say "fine words butter no parsnips". Tories since Cameron ( he who sold off the Harrier fleet to the US Marines for a song and shredded the Nimrods) have only paid lip service to preserving a credible military structure. Boasting about our 2% GDP achievement rings false when you consider that in "2015 the UK changed (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmdfence/494/494.pdf#page=12) what was counted in its defence spending. War pensions (around £820 million), assessed contributions to UN peacekeeping missions (around £400 million), and pensions for retired civilian Ministry of Defence personnel (thought to be around £200 million) were included for the first time. That’s over £1 billion in spending which was previously not counted in the budget." Fullfact.org

[melmothtw]

Well, the NMH is now only a Puma replacement, and there are only 23 of them.

Clearly not enough for the job, or why else make the requirement "up to 44" (and the handful of 212s, 412s, and Dauphins aren't the reason)?

If 23 is all we need, just make the requirement for 23.

[SLXOwft]

In oral evidence to the HoC Northern Ireland Committee's hearing of oral evidence on Defence Spending (https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/ff58467b-1089-4bae-9e02-4585492a4c3f) in the province on Wednesday (starting at 10.26.45), Nick Laird, managing director of European space and defence at Spirit AeroSystems (ex MOD senior civil servant - left 2017), stated '“The number of aircraft for the UK military defence is circa 30, and we’ve just gone through an extended invitation to tender and we’re now in an invitation to negotiate (ITN) period,” Spirit are one on the Airbus helicopters partners.

Apparently there is a key focus on exportability for the NMH winner.

[rattman]

UK is now selling the 5 H-135's that they were going to lease to Australia. Agreement has been reached on their sale for an uspecified amount. These will go into the pilot training

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-sells-surplus-h135-military-helicopters-to-australia/

[ORAC]

https://des.mod.uk/des-to-award-contracts-on-1-billion-framework-to-develop-uks-first-hypersonic-missile/

DE&S to award contracts on £1 billion framework to develop UK’s first hypersonic missile

Britain’s development of a sovereign hypersonic strike capability is taking a substantial leap forward with a new agreement to facilitate collaboration on cutting edge tech.

Ninety organisations – large and small – from across industry and academia have secured a place on a £1 billion transformational Hypersonic Technologies & Capability Development Framework (HTCDF) agreement set up to rapidly develop advanced hypersonic missile capabilities for the UK.

The organisations accepted onto the eight-lot Framework, which is led by MOD’s Team Hypersonics (UK), will now be eligible to bid for contracts; the maximum value of the Framework across the next seven years is up to £1 billion.

The award of contracts on the Framework will be managed by commercial experts at DE&S.

Project delivery has been designed with pace in mind, with the Framework adopting mechanisms which align procurement and development objectives, preventing the traditional challenges that impede capability acquisition.…..

The HTCDF has been designed to provide a responsive, agile route to market to facilitate capability realisation at pace. Uniquely it will be used to select suppliers to deliver services and supplies to support the research, development and testing of hypersonic technologies right through to a capability.

Intrinsically linked with MOD’s ambition to transform acquisition, the Framework enables focussed research to be spirally developed through varying Technical Readiness Levels (TRLs) onwards to a capability. The maturity of the services and supplies provided under the resulting Call Off contracts will be TRL 1 – 9.

Alongside established weapons manufacturers and academic institutions, nearly half of the suppliers will be Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), the vast majority of which are based in the UK. This diverse supply base will enable MOD to leverage the strength and breadth of UK and international talent and innovation across the defence enterprise….

The HTCDF will also re-open to new suppliers every 6 to 12 months to ensure that MOD can continue to draw upon new technologies and emerging market capabilities. Opportunities to join the Framework will be advertised on the UK MOD Defence Sourcing Portal (DSP).

The 8 Lots are: Design & Integration; Modelling, Simulation, Test & Evaluation; Airframe & Power Generation; Low Technology Readiness Specialists; Lethal Package; Propulsion; Onboard Computing; Seekers.

[Asturias56]

£ 10 million per company over 7 years.............................. maybe

It'll pay for the coffee

[Biggus]

.... and biscuits.

[ORAC]

Not really relevant, except as background to the MOD - but a delicious thread……

https://x.com/thedreadships/status/1791420447004717351?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A
Do we want a story, children? Then I'll begin...

It had been a very busy day on the Isle of MODor railway. Thomas had been hard at work happily loading bombs and ammunition to bring death to his enemies.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1791420447004717351.html

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-042024-runaway-wagon-at-kineton
​​​​​​​

[Asturias56]

I'm baffled......................

[ORAC]

Buffered surely?

[Asturias56]

I was never a fan ..............................