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

[Asturias56]

Today's "Times" has an article about the Defence Review Boris has promised for next year - full of quotes from the usual band of ex-VSO's fighting the corner for their ex-Service

Army - must keep a "war fighting all arms Division of 20,000 men"

RAF - Accept no cuts, need extra 2 Typhoon squadrons

RN - Successor, more amphib , frigates - no mothballing or sale of the PoW


This one could run and run - but generally a UK SDR isn't good news for anyone

[Easy Street]

generally a UK SDR isn't good news for anyone

Actually SDSR15 was good news for all the services, especially the RAF. Too good, it would seem, given the slow progress made in delivering on it. If the next one takes any of it back then the services will have to shoulder a lot of the blame for having made unrealistic and unaffordable proposals.

Judging by the spending commitments being flung about like confetti in the current election campaign I strongly suspect Defence funding will stay no more than a whisker ahead of 2%. And who knows what the GDP forecasts would look like after a Brexit deal is done. If the SDSR happens in a hurry after the election then it will probably be finished ahead of any such forecasts, which would be very convenient indeed for a new Government looking to avoid hard choices. The big decisions will probably happen with much less fanfare (and lobbying) when the mid-term spending review sets out financial reality in 2022-23 or so...

[Finningley Boy]

The General Staff were recently reported to be looking to contract the size of the Army to about 65,000, or even less, in order to address the poor retention problem they have. I somehow don't think it'll work. Further, the Bun fight seems to have already started, with the Army and Navy the most vocal of all. The army are calling for one of the two new Carries to be loaned, or hired, to the US Navy. Both the two more senior arms are calling for the RAF to be folded as they see it, because soon all air warfare will be done by drones. I don't know how they've arrived at such a notion. Especially the RN with the prospect of an undeterminable number of F-35s in the pipeline for their two new massive aircraft carriers, which they want to hang on to and have objected to the Army's suggestion they be rented out.

Best regards,

FB

[Asturias56]

Well the second carrier was always supposed to be "at readiness" i.e parked in Portsmouth but able to go into action relatively (= an undetermined period) quickly.

The one thing going for the RAF is that the Typhoon production line could do with a boost if only to retain the skill sets plus they get the P-8's and most of the drones

The Navy are getting their new frigates and patrol boats (and Succesor and the last "Astute")

The Army looked stuffed at the moment.

[BVRAAM]

A commitment to the F-35A for the RAF with a reduction in the B model procurement.

[Finningley Boy]

A commitment to the F-35A for the RAF with a reduction in the B model procurement.

Here Here, or Hear Hear! or which ever is the correct sentiment of this famous rallying call for support, I never knew which it was? Perhaps someone kindly erudite person could put me on the right track?!

FB

[pr00ne]

Asturia56,

That changed ages ago with both fully crewed and operational.

[pr00ne]

Finningley Boy,

"Hear, hear," as in "Hear him, Hear him!"

[Finningley Boy]

Finningley Boy,

"Hear, hear," as in "Hear him, Hear him!"

Many thanks sir, I could never recall whether it was over here over here or hear him hear him. I shall remember from here on in!

FB

[Asturias56]

Asturia56,

That changed ages ago with both fully crewed and operational.

was that a definite promise, an intention or an aspiration? we see all 3 with respect to UK defence policy unfortunately :uhoh:

[Asturias56]

A commitment to the F-35A for the RAF with a reduction in the B model procurement.


The Naval Lobby would go into meltdown.................

[Richard Dangle]

11 posts in and nobody mentioned the Scottish Play :E

[Finningley Boy]

The Naval Lobby would go into meltdown.................

They may make the case for all 138 to be B, but surely no more than 48 or 60 maximum would be justifiable. I'm sure the Navy would like to overtake the RAF's principal role, but if the RAF is going to be a truly expeditionary force then it is better off have the A variant. The RN I'm sure would try and thwart such a balance.

FB

[BVRAAM]

The Naval Lobby would go into meltdown.................

Oh well! ;)

A cut to the B model and an A model buy would allow for more airframes overall because the A is considerably cheaper, and a refuelling boom upgrade to Voyager which would make the C-17, Poseidon and Airseeker communities very happy. Good for the Wedgetail, too, when it arrives.

[alfred_the_great]

They may make the case for all 138 to be B, but surely no more than 48 or 60 maximum would be justifiable. I'm sure the Navy would like to overtake the RAF's principal role, but if the RAF is going to be a truly expeditionary force then it is better off have the A variant. The RN I'm sure would try and thwart such a balance.

FB

If the RAF is to be expeditionary, then it might help to actually procure teh A4/A6 “stuff” to make it expeditionary.

And then reset the culture such as “OOADs”/“deployments” are routine and positive, not something to be whinged about - as many do on here.

Then you can work on supporting the RAF ISR community - in particular the PED - to get best value from the stuff we have.

And then sort out the flying training pipeline.

Then, perhaps, you might be in the market for new jets.

[Davef68]

The Army looked stuffed at the moment.

Boxer? Only 20 years late, but welcome surely?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/28bn-armoured-vehicle-contract-secured-for-british-army

[Asturias56]

Absolutely - Matthew 18 V10-14

[Asturias56]

Oh well! ;)

A cut to the B model and an A model buy would allow for more airframes overall because the A is considerably cheaper, and a refuelling boom upgrade to Voyager which would make the C-17, Poseidon and Airseeker communities very happy. Good for the Wedgetail, too, when it arrives.

More likely to mean the UK gets something closer to the "target" of 138 air-frames overall

[BVRAAM]

More likely to mean the UK gets something closer to the "target" of 138 air-frames overall

Yeah - I recall the UK was once buying 250 Typhoons. We have less than 150 in service. Sad.

[pr00ne]

was that a definite promise, an intention or an aspiration? we see all 3 with respect to UK defence policy unfortunately :uhoh:

Asturia56,

It's just a fact.

[pr00ne]

BVRAAM,

Did the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO member states now abutting Russia and almost every former Warsaw Pact member now being a member of NATO pass you by completely?

Cos that's why the 250 target figure was dropped.

[BVRAAM]

BVRAAM,

Did the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO member states now abutting Russia and almost every former Warsaw Pact member now being a member of NATO pass you by completely?

Cos that's why the 250 target figure was dropped.

I realise that, but I will argue we had Tornado F3's, Tornado GR1/4's, Sea Harriers, regular Harriers and Jags to make up the numbers & share the roles equally. For a couple of years after the fall of the Soviet Union, we had F-4's and Buccaneers, too.

The Typhoon Force is now doing (almost) everything all the others combined, did, with a fraction of the available assets and people. That's a lot of work...
Russia and Iran now pose a threat. Maybe it's time for the country to sit down and start discussing defence again?

[BVRAAM]

I think it's only a matter of time before Iran attacks a neighbouring country again.
If Trump wins a second term, the gloves will be off - he won't need to keep the election promise of "no more wars," any more, because he'll be gone in January 2025, as per the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, regardless.
If they do attack, Trump will retaliate with some form of military action. Then Russia will get involved, like they did in Syria, and it could be a mess. Like always, the UK will be dragged in and we haven't invested enough in defence to meet that demand.
Barely scraping 2% of GDP is frankly a joke, when we invest so much more in to bloated and poorly managed departments elsewhere. We should be investing at least 3!

[BVRAAM]

As a matter of fact, Trump has already hinted he will retaliate if they so much as dare strike another allied country again.
His restraint really is a sign of strength - a level of strength his predecessor didn't have. Iran should take that as a warning, and not as a cop out. Donald Trump doesn't make idle threats. Iran will call his bluff at their peril.

[orca]

Don’t forget we ‘paid to be different’ on the F-35B not the A. If you want As...and it’s understandable that you do...you might want to factor in all those bespoke UK weapon integrations onto the cost. Plus whichever is cheaper...probe onto A or boom onto PFI airline-tanker thingy.
My bet would be on the next order being for more Bs...but I think the through life buy will be near as damn it 50:50.

[heights good]

And then reset the culture such as “OOADs”/“deployments” are routine and positive, not something to be whinged about - as many do on here.

A glib and frustrating comment. I really hope you are not one of those people that have deployed for 6 months in the last 10 yrs. I feel you might be slightly out of touch.

I can't speak for all, but OOA has never bothered me per se, I take the wages, I gotta earn them.

However.....There is a middle ground. When most units have a shortfall of 5-50% in the required manning due to sick, lame, lazy and empty JPANs, it gets tedious VERY quickly.

The 20% that do 80% of the work has never been more true than the last few years. I have spent 3.5 yrs of the last 6 yrs out with my own marital bed due to exercises, courses, deployments, standby, exercises etc... And just to be clear, I dont mean weekends aren't counted, I mean 1,277 days I was not home. Others that I have worked alongside, have spent around 9 months away from home in the same time period.

Personally I have been lied to and manipulated to deploy as "you are the only person qualified in the RAF". This really sticks in the throat and frustrates those who are willing to dig out blind and work hard. The role I was doing ended up with me being replaced by someone fresh out of Ph 2 training who did not have 50% of the required quals....

I had one of my Sqn mates coerced into deploying when his wife had diagnosed post-natal depression. She was 4 months post birth, had no family to help and had another child to look after whilst dealing with physical birth trauma and severe depression which led to a severe lack of sleep. My boss told him that there was no replacement and he had to go....Unsurprisingly he was Comp B'd less than a month into his deployment when his wife fell asleep at a set of traffic lights before the police were called and then had a breakdown which required a neighbour had to intervene and call the Chief Clerk! This was his 3rd deployment in 2.5 yrs.

Be mindful that general statements will by definition not include all. They will very likely deeply anger those, who are the opposite, of what your statements profess to demonstrate.

[alfred_the_great]

Given I've over 2000 days LSA, I've deployed for 227 days on my last deployment, and I've led people around the world, I'd say I've earned the right to judge those who whinge about "not joining up to do OOADs".

There are a minority who sustain the burden - at every rank - and there are others who shine their arses.

Do we get it right - not always, but we should join with the expectation of repeated deployments. If you have a need not to go (and post-natal mental health support would be a good enough reason) then the system should support you as well.

[Mr. Vice]

In my opinion the most important thing from an Operational capability standpoint is to ensure future interoperability with the US. We need to move away from this huge European/NATO multi-national project idea.

Scrap the idea of Tempest and look to enter joint US/UK programs with licenses to build elements in the UK, even if it means buying off the shelf US designs.

You need to be able to seamlessley integrate into a Network enabled war now days to have a place at the table or be involved in night one of the war. This should be the highest priority, even if it means forfeiting some industrial kudos.

Done correctly, UK buy in to majority US programs is in my opinion the future of combat air. Smart contracting could see design or production elements shared to help UK industry, including weapons.

Mr Vice.

[Asturias56]

Trouble is Vice is that you are then giving up any chance of taking any independent decisions. The UK is supposed to be leaving the EU because it doesn't want to be dictated to and organised by foreigners but your scheme would see the US having total control over UK military equipment etc.

Secondly can you afford it? The US spends a lot more on kit (item by item) than the UK does.......................

[Asturias56]

Back on thread:-

In a perfect world the politicians would lay out what they want the military to do - the military would then estimate independently what forces are needed and then someone (also independent ) like the Institute for Fiscal Studies would crunch the costs and tell Govt this is the bill ....... you'd go round the hoops a few times to get to an answer

I'm sure people e.g. Sir Humphrey Appleby) will claim that this is what is done now in Whitehall - but I think it should all be done in public - then we can see who is grandstanding

[Mr. Vice]

Trouble is Vice is that you are then giving up any chance of taking any independent decisions. The UK is supposed to be leaving the EU because it doesn't want to be dictated to and organised by foreigners but your scheme would see the US having total control over UK military equipment etc.

Secondly can you afford it? The US spends a lot more on kit (item by item) than the UK does.......................

In answer to a couple of your points:

1) The UK is leaving the EU yet is getting involved in Tempest with Italy and Sweden. Both nations who have no interest in the sort of expeditionary warfare we have been carrying out for decades. How will you develop and expand the platform to suit your needs when the partner nations share no interest in spending money to increase the capability? This is often seen in the Eurofighter Program.

2) I would be interested to see your figures on how the US spend a lot more 'item by item' than the UK does. I am pretty sure that given scales of economy the Australian procurement of US Hornets works out cheaper than the Typhoon purchase for the UK.

The US would not have total control over your kit and equipment and where you use it, that is nonsense. What it would give you is access to spares and combined development. As I mentioned before, UK industry could benefit from integrating great UK weapons on to US platforms and offering the US the benefit of our weapons if they did decide to purchase.

Finally, on what planet do you think we would ever get involved in an independent war. Look at the state of our current government and national appetite for overseas Operations. Get real, we are no longer a global super power. Lets move forward and integrate with the US, they have been involved in every single conflict we have been in for the past 30 years and we could not have done without them, the sooner we get over the notion of the UK as an independent Global Military Power the better.

Lets accept where we are, channel our funding to buy the best capability we can in order to seamlessly integrate with our preferred partner for the greatest combined effect.

Mr Vice.

[Asturias56]

"the sort of expeditionary warfare we have been carrying out for decades"

i'm not sure that has a great deal of public support in the UK any longer............ nor is there a great deal of enthusiasm for being US mercenaries - it hasn't worked out very well since 2000

[Countdown begins]

The PoW and QE are future artificial reefs, nothing more.
Let’s put them near... China for example. A years ago some clever Navy spokesman said about the acoustic range of QE... ‘ doesn’t matter as it’s not an ASW asset’. That’s maybe because it’s the target, so... maybe it’s acoustic range does matter?
Lions led by donkeys! We don’t have enough P8s, helicopter can’t do wide area surveillance and the RAF answer is to replace experience willingly for cheaper people. It will end in tears. When 20t of water floods in, it’s a minor problem?!
I recall the article just 2 weeks ago when a helpful MOD spokesman told the papers the F35 had a 20:1 advantage. So 20 Chinese stealth, or Russian for that matter, and we offer SEAD or DEAD?
At the end of the day, there’s no getting real, there’s flag waving and euphoria, for whatever reason.
Time for the SDSR? YES. Time to outsource to Deloitte? YES, the MOD cannot be trusted, it’s too much jobs for the boys, and little comprehension of the stakes the pilots face.
Our next war may not be against a country of tribes, but one against overwhelmingly stiff odds and a less belligerent canopy.

[Whenurhappy]

The PoW and QE are future artificial reefs, nothing more.
Let’s put them near... China for example. A years ago some clever Navy spokesman said about the acoustic range of QE... ‘ doesn’t matter as it’s not an ASW asset’. That’s maybe because it’s the target, so... maybe it’s acoustic range does matter?
Lions led by donkeys! We don’t have enough P8s, helicopter can’t do wide area surveillance and the RAF answer is to replace experience willingly for cheaper people. It will end in tears. When 20t of water floods in, it’s a minor problem?!
I recall the article just 2 weeks ago when a helpful MOD spokesman told the papers the F35 had a 20:1 advantage. So 20 Chinese stealth, or Russian for that matter, and we offer SEAD or DEAD?
At the end of the day, there’s no getting real, there’s flag waving and euphoria, for whatever reason.
Time for the SDSR? YES. Time to outsource to Deloitte? YES, the MOD cannot be trusted, it’s too much jobs for the boys, and little comprehension of the stakes the pilots face.
Our next war may not be against a country of tribes, but one against overwhelmingly stiff odds and a less belligerent canopy.
Too late - the big consultancies are over SDSR like a tramp on chips. All are offering their 'visioneering' and 'imagineering' across the services and the other SDDR players. At £1200 per consultant per day...

...Oh, and just to point out, SDSR is not conducted by the MOD. MOD and the three Services are active bystanders.

[Lima Juliet]

Countdown begins and BVRAAM - are you the same person??? :}

[Countdown begins]

LJ, that’s a negative. We’re both outlaws on here though, as non conformist, lateral thinkers.’

[Countdown begins]

Too late - the big consultancies are over SDSR like a tramp on chips. All are offering their 'visioneering' and 'imagineering' across the services and the other SDDR players. At £1200 per consultant per day...

...Oh, and just to point out, SDSR is not conducted by the MOD. MOD and the three Services are active bystanders.

Thats not expensive when you look at nearly 1000 Wg Cdr and above on a directionless self licking lollipop.
Where is the ‘Focus on personnel’? Great in a pamphlet, but not over on Ops.
People first... anyone got any examples?
Ive recently left, so I’m not going to be quietened down by a boss that has no bullocks. I think an army of Deloitte etc would be worth paying, rather than have a load of pension calculators grinding the guys down with no tangibles to demonstrate to Ben Wallace.

[Lima Juliet]

LJ, that’s a negative. We’re both outlaws on here though, as non conformist, lateral thinkers.’

LOL - so another couple of Edward de Bonos who think Marmite is the answer to world peace??? :8

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/de-bonos-marmite-plan-for-peace-in-middle-yeast-1133338.html

[BVRAAM]

The PoW and QE are future artificial reefs, nothing more.
Let’s put them near... China for example. A years ago some clever Navy spokesman said about the acoustic range of QE... ‘ doesn’t matter as it’s not an ASW asset’. That’s maybe because it’s the target, so... maybe it’s acoustic range does matter?
Lions led by donkeys! We don’t have enough P8s, helicopter can’t do wide area surveillance and the RAF answer is to replace experience willingly for cheaper people. It will end in tears. When 20t of water floods in, it’s a minor problem?!
I recall the article just 2 weeks ago when a helpful MOD spokesman told the papers the F35 had a 20:1 advantage. So 20 Chinese stealth, or Russian for that matter, and we offer SEAD or DEAD?
At the end of the day, there’s no getting real, there’s flag waving and euphoria, for whatever reason.
Time for the SDSR? YES. Time to outsource to Deloitte? YES, the MOD cannot be trusted, it’s too much jobs for the boys, and little comprehension of the stakes the pilots face.
Our next war may not be against a country of tribes, but one against overwhelmingly stiff odds and a less belligerent canopy.

As opposed to the advantage ratio for the Typhoon?

They lose 20 assets, we lose one. Who has been disrupted the most?

Respectfully, it looks like Diane Abbott has done your maths for you.

[BVRAAM]

In answer to a couple of your points:

1) The UK is leaving the EU yet is getting involved in Tempest with Italy and Sweden. Both nations who have no interest in the sort of expeditionary warfare we have been carrying out for decades. How will you develop and expand the platform to suit your needs when the partner nations share no interest in spending money to increase the capability? This is often seen in the Eurofighter Program.

2) I would be interested to see your figures on how the US spend a lot more 'item by item' than the UK does. I am pretty sure that given scales of economy the Australian procurement of US Hornets works out cheaper than the Typhoon purchase for the UK.

The US would not have total control over your kit and equipment and where you use it, that is nonsense. What it would give you is access to spares and combined development. As I mentioned before, UK industry could benefit from integrating great UK weapons on to US platforms and offering the US the benefit of our weapons if they did decide to purchase.

Finally, on what planet do you think we would ever get involved in an independent war. Look at the state of our current government and national appetite for overseas Operations. Get real, we are no longer a global super power. Lets move forward and integrate with the US, they have been involved in every single conflict we have been in for the past 30 years and we could not have done without them, the sooner we get over the notion of the UK as an independent Global Military Power the better.

Lets accept where we are, channel our funding to buy the best capability we can in order to seamlessly integrate with our preferred partner for the greatest combined effect.

Mr Vice.

I couldn't agree more.

The U.S. is the only country I fully trust. Integration means we can have more for less, as well. Win, win.

[Lima Juliet]

Thats not expensive when you look at nearly 1000 Wg Cdr and above on a directionless self licking lollipop.
Where is the ‘Focus on personnel’? Great in a pamphlet, but not over on Ops.
People first... anyone got any examples?
Ive recently left, so I’m not going to be quietened down by a boss that has no bullocks. I think an army of Deloitte etc would be worth paying, rather than have a load of pension calculators grinding the guys down with no tangibles to demonstrate to Ben Wallace.

So what 1,000 Wg Cdr+ are these then? Also, have you any idea the amount of tripe that has been espoused by your suggested outsourced consultants that effectively regurgitate what they have been told after consulting with Service personnel? The average spend was over £5,000 per consultant per day back in 2011 - what have we got to show for that investment?(rhetorical question)

https://spendmatters.com/uk/mod-paying-5000-day-plus-vat-consultants-evidence/

You want some ‘lateral thinking’? Empower your personnel with at least 15 years of experience to inform your leadership without diluting their message. Also, trust your people and delegate until you start to feel uncomfortable; then back it off a bit (just a bit).

By the way, “people first” is an invention just as much in the private sector as it is in the public sector. It just makes people feel good!

[Bob Viking]

I read your post and it made me think of something I have thought about for several years.

We have the CASWOs conference where WOs tell CAS about the state of the nation.

Sqn bosses also have the opportunity to feed back to CAS quite regularly.

The one group who has no direct conduit (and I mean unfiltered without the spin of the Sqn Boss) to CAS is the JOs. And, since I’m a pilot, what I really mean here is the JO pilots.

There are roughly 30000 currently in the RAF. From memory I think there are just shy of 2000 pilots of all ranks. Most of the flying (both operationally and locally) is done by JO pilots. They are the ones who are keeping the ‘Air’ in the name of the organisation. They are also basically ignored wholesale.

I’m not suggesting a Union but what I am suggesting is that maybe there should be a CASJOs conference. An opportunity for each flying unit (by all means expand it to all trades but that is not my area of expertise) to pick a genuine representative (not a thruster chosen by the powers that be but a ‘good lad’ who will say it how it is) who gets a chance to tell CAS exactly what is affecting those on the shop floor without fear of reprisal.

I think we ignore the JO cadre at our peril. Especially in the flying branch. For it is they who are doing our fighting (flying) and appear to be becoming more and more disillusioned. Denying them a voice is not helping.

Just my take on things. Obvs.

BV

[Countdown begins]

As opposed to the advantage ratio for the Typhoon?

They lose 20 assets, we lose one. Who has been disrupted the most?

Respectfully, it looks like Diane Abbott has done your maths for you.
You miss the point, do we really think it has that advantage? 🤣
I feel it’s more than just a tad over optimistic, perhaps even a little too arrogant.

[Countdown begins]

So what 1,000 Wg Cdr+ are these then? Also, have you any idea the amount of tripe that has been espoused by your suggested outsourced consultants that effectively regurgitate what they have been told after consulting with Service personnel? The average spend was over £5,000 per consultant per day back in 2011 - what have we got to show for that investment?(rhetorical question)

https://spendmatters.com/uk/mod-paying-5000-day-plus-vat-consultants-evidence/

You want some ‘lateral thinking’? Empower your personnel with at least 15 years of experience to inform your leadership without diluting their message. Also, trust your people and delegate until you start to feel uncomfortable; then back it off a bit (just a bit).

By the way, “people first” is an invention just as much in the private sector as it is in the public sector. It just makes people feel good!
For the 1000+?? I suggest you google the word ‘list’ and do some detective work. It shouldn’t take long! Adding RAF will shorten the time spent.
You hit the nail later in your post, though. Experience is key, and not understood. Once you have their views where should it go? The top won’t take it unstaffed, so whatever you do it will not be served fresh.
If ‘people first’ is just an invention, why waste the electrons and ink. If it’s a fantasy then you lose your people, surely better to say nothing, then you never actually fail?
I do thank you for your 8 year old link though, from the age of serious austerity, I’m sure it’s useful and relevant. Just for my benefit, could you tell me what the total cost for Project Gateway was? That was a well run, though late project that hacked us all off at the time, but now I hear it’s working well.

[Herod]

BV. Nail, head. Agreed. Some things never change. I left, as a JO aircrew, over 40 years ago, and it was the same then.

[BVRAAM]

You miss the point, do we really think it has that advantage? 🤣
I feel it’s more than just a tad over optimistic, perhaps even a little too arrogant.

It surely can't be that far off.

[Asturias56]

"At £1200 per consultant per day..."

That's another problem - they're getting rubbish consultants if they're only charging £1200 a day - a decent management consultant is on over £ 500 an hour

[downsizer]

I read your post and it made me think of something I have thought about for several years.

We have the CASWOs conference where WOs tell CAS about the state of the nation.

Sqn bosses also have the opportunity to feed back to CAS quite regularly.

The one group who has no direct conduit (and I mean unfiltered without the spin of the Sqn Boss) to CAS is the JOs. And, since I’m a pilot, what I really mean here is the JO pilots.

There are roughly 30000 currently in the RAF. From memory I think there are just shy of 2000 pilots of all ranks. Most of the flying (both operationally and locally) is done by JO pilots. They are the ones who are keeping the ‘Air’ in the name of the organisation. They are also basically ignored wholesale.

I’m not suggesting a Union but what I am suggesting is that maybe there should be a CASJOs conference. An opportunity for each flying unit (by all means expand it to all trades but that is not my area of expertise) to pick a genuine representative (not a thruster chosen by the powers that be but a ‘good lad’ who will say it how it is) who gets a chance to tell CAS exactly what is affecting those on the shop floor without fear of reprisal.

I think we ignore the JO cadre at our peril. Especially in the flying branch. For it is they who are doing our fighting (flying) and appear to be becoming more and more disillusioned. Denying them a voice is not helping.

Just my take on things. Obvs.

BV

Mate, don't over estimate the CASWOs conference, prime example of self licking lollipop. It is attended (largely) by people more interested in notionally creating 4 levels of WO... CASWO, Gp WO, SWO, WO. Hardly giving it to the man. I've met the last 3 CASWOs and despite giving it large about sitting at the top table none of them could provide an example of where they had influenced a decision for the betterment of personnel.

[OldnDaft]

Mate, don't over estimate the CASWOs conference, prime example of self licking lollipop. It is attended (largely) by people more interested in notionally creating 4 levels of WO... CASWO, Gp WO, SWO, WO. Hardly giving it to the man. I've met the last 3 CASWOs and despite giving it large about sitting at the top table none of them could provide an example of where they had influenced a decision for the betterment of personnel.
Could not agree more. It is window dressing at best. The current incumbent brandishes a stick in photographs, why? Reaching WO/MACR was always the pinnacle for the non-commissioned ranks, apparently no longer......

[pax britanica]

As some one who you guys defended or defended it saddens me to hear how the UK forces get treated especially at the individual level. Living where I do near Camberley there are a great many retired service personnel and have heard quite a few stories of the difficulties faced by service families and therefore service personnel.

it seems to me if you like as an end user in the defence world that we really must refocus on what our military objectives are. Forget the foreign involvment unless its aprt of a large multinational force and by that i dont mean 90% US and 10% us.

I do agree that some sort of deal with the US on Airforce hardware seems to work well enough for many EU countries but I dont think we can ever fully trust the USA -its always been America first and in terms of any serious land conflict we always have to be aligned with EU countries just because of Geography so in or out of the Eu we are tied to our neighbours -if a country threatens France it threatens us and vv . On the other hand would Trump trust Corbin or a Democrat trust Johnson
So for me cut back strategic spending-the carriers were a joke from the start and invest properly in people to prevent high wastage rates and in new technology be that smart agile weapons system which may in the end be air or ship-mounted and also take a decision over whether cyber threats are a police or Military/Security matter .

Russia if it is an enemy-I dont think it is personally -thats an EU /Euromatter because of Geography as to Iran if they want to attack Iraq again what can we do about it anyway. Its a matter of adjusting to resources and reality and most important is keeping a dedicated and motivated cadre of military personnel and equipping them to deal witht he 21st Centruy not the cold war or colonial past

[BVRAAM]

As some one who you guys defended or defended it saddens me to hear how the UK forces get treated especially at the individual level. Living where I do near Camberley there are a great many retired service personnel and have heard quite a few stories of the difficulties faced by service families and therefore service personnel.

it seems to me if you like as an end user in the defence world that we really must refocus on what our military objectives are. Forget the foreign involvment unless its aprt of a large multinational force and by that i dont mean 90% US and 10% us.

I do agree that some sort of deal with the US on Airforce hardware seems to work well enough for many EU countries but I dont think we can ever fully trust the USA -its always been America first and in terms of any serious land conflict we always have to be aligned with EU countries just because of Geography so in or out of the Eu we are tied to our neighbours -if a country threatens France it threatens us and vv . On the other hand would Trump trust Corbin or a Democrat trust Johnson
So for me cut back strategic spending-the carriers were a joke from the start and invest properly in people to prevent high wastage rates and in new technology be that smart agile weapons system which may in the end be air or ship-mounted and also take a decision over whether cyber threats are a police or Military/Security matter .

Russia if it is an enemy-I dont think it is personally -thats an EU /Euromatter because of Geography as to Iran if they want to attack Iraq again what can we do about it anyway. Its a matter of adjusting to resources and reality and most important is keeping a dedicated and motivated cadre of military personnel and equipping them to deal witht he 21st Centruy not the cold war or colonial past

You personally don't think the Russian Federation is an adversary?

How does the murder and attempted murder of former Russian security services agents on UK soil sound to you, using 'weapons' that even the most sophisticated organised criminal just can't get?

They're an enemy. Just because they aren't recruiting people in to throwing on a suicide IED, and walking in to shopping centre, doesn't make them less of a threat. The UK needs to equip its military with that threat in mind.

[Whenurhappy]

"At £1200 per consultant per day..."

That's another problem - they're getting rubbish consultants if they're only charging £1200 a day - a decent management consultant is on over £ 500 an hour
that might be for a one-off consultancy, but across the big 4, that’s about the going rate for each consultant on an enduring contract. On top of that there is the cost for the assignment manager and partner involvement. A principal consultant is about £1500 per day; an analyst under £1000.

Of course that’s not what the individual receives in his or her pay packet, unless you are a freelancer.

[heights good]

You personally don't think the Russian Federation is an adversary?

How does the murder and attempted murder of former Russian security services agents on UK soil sound to you, using 'weapons' that even the most sophisticated organised criminal just can't get?

They're an enemy. Just because they aren't recruiting people in to throwing on a suicide IED, and walking in to shopping centre, doesn't make them less of a threat. The UK needs to equip its military with that threat in mind.

Russia is definitely a threat, no doubt.

Are they credible, not really.
Are they likely to do anything significant, I REALLY doubt it.
Am I worried about them, not in the slightest.

Ask me about the big country to the South of Russia....

Different league and will be the single biggest threat to the entire world and a true existential threat to the West within the next 2 decades. They scare me a LOT!

[TwoTunnels]

Bob Viking...

"Most of the flying (both operationally and locally) is done by JO pilots. They are the ones who are keeping the ‘Air’ in the name of the organisation."

No other aircrew in the RAF then?... I take it you're a pointy driver then...

[Bob Viking]

If you care to read my whole post you will find that I addressed your concerns.

Yes I am a FJ pilot. As a result that is all I can really talk about with any authority. I have no idea how morale and manning is in other branches.

Instead of being indignant maybe you could just comment on the idea.

BV

[Easy Street]

Bob Viking...

"Most of the flying (both operationally and locally) is done by JO pilots. They are the ones who are keeping the ‘Air’ in the name of the organisation."

No other aircrew in the RAF then?... I take it you're a pointy driver then...

The RAF has a requirement (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/767505/11485.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiEk4mh-J3mAhVzsHEKHVErC_YQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2bJKCJOWnOeJ3B1NRMqpM6) for 1280 JO pilots, 640 sqn ldr/wg cdr pilots (around half of whom are in staff roles), 340 WSOs at wg cdr and below and 810 NCA of all ranks. So I take it you don't comprehend the difference between 'most' and 'all'...

[Asturias56]

"Russia is definitely a threat, no doubt. Are they credible, not really."

Spending more than they have for a long time but still not a lot - especially when spread over such a large area and 3 oceans

An awful lot of their kit is 30+ years old and they have a lot of problems keeping anything working - e.g their aircraft carrier.............

[BVRAAM]

Russia is definitely a threat, no doubt.

Are they credible, not really.
Are they likely to do anything significant, I REALLY doubt it.
Am I worried about them, not in the slightest.

Ask me about the big country to the South of Russia....

Different league and will be the single biggest threat to the entire world and a true existential threat to the West within the next 2 decades. They scare me a LOT!

The very big country south of Russia is indeed a far more significant threat.
Russia is an ally of that nation. Russia supplies their military. Any war in Iran would involve Russia.
I also don't believe that Mr. Putin is particularly moral, therefore it's reasonable to assume any war with Russia involved could escalate to nuclear warfare, or at the very least, we could have cruise missiles fired at us with conventional warheads. Therefore the UK needs to make sure its anti-missile defences are top of the line.

[Countdown begins]

"Russia is definitely a threat, no doubt. Are they credible, not really."

Spending more than they have for a long time but still not a lot - especially when spread over such a large area and 3 oceans

An awful lot of their kit is 30+ years old and they have a lot of problems keeping anything working - e.g their aircraft carrier.............


How far out of port do our carriers get before they are sunk? Rather than talking nonsense you should maybe research the Russian navy, and how it has upgraded its 30 year old ships and submarines.
H I Sutton - Covert Shores (http://www.hisutton.com/)
They are more than just a credible threat, and they are there...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navy-beware-russian-submarines-surge-atlantic-92336

What if China were to divert US assets from EUrope to the Pacific, do we continue to ‘high 5’ or do we start saving money by teaching Russian as a second language?

Its a a good job that we have a healthy ratio in the skies, because at sea maybe that is not the case; have a good research of the first link using google as well, before you sit too comfortably.

[Asturias56]

Russia currently is operating around 3 "Borey" SSBN + 1 Typhoon + 7 Deltas - the Deltas are between 30 & 40 years old.

They have 10 Akulas SSN's which are approx 30 years old plus 1 Yasen which is about 6 years old

Also some SSK's and , old Oscars etc

these are split across 3 oceans

It's still a meaningful force but it's about the same as the UK plus France put together - and they are in one ocean.

[Countdown begins]

Russia currently is operating around 3 "Borey" SSBN + 1 Typhoon + 7 Deltas - the Deltas are between 30 & 40 years old.

They have 10 Akulas SSN's which are approx 30 years old plus 1 Yasen which is about 6 years old

Also some SSK's and , old Oscars etc

these are split across 3 oceans

It's still a meaningful force but it's about the same as the UK plus France put together - and they are in one ocean.
Try again, the article mentions Sierra class I believe. So in 30 years they just run them into the ground, they don’t refit and they don’t do interim upgrades?
You should delve into it, as clearly you haven’t bothered.
What about Belgorod?
What are they doing with the other Typhoons, what about Poseidon?
Either you didn’t go over the site at all, you aren’t interested or are trolling.

[heights good]

How far out of port do our carriers get before they are sunk? Rather than talking nonsense you should maybe research the Russian navy, and how it has upgraded its 30 year old ships and submarines.
H I Sutton - Covert Shores (http://www.hisutton.com/)
They are more than just a credible threat, and they are there...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navy-beware-russian-submarines-surge-atlantic-92336

What if China were to divert US assets from EUrope to the Pacific, do we continue to ‘high 5’ or do we start saving money by teaching Russian as a second language?

Its a a good job that we have a healthy ratio in the skies, because at sea maybe that is not the case; have a good research of the first link using google as well, before you sit too comfortably.

Versus NATO.....

[Countdown begins]

Versus NATO.....

And the bit about US attention diverted? You think there’s a match against Russia?
ofcourse, this is just a theoretical exercise, they would never coordinate a multi theatre split and NATO is strong enough. All them spanking German subs that are good to go.. and all that.

[Fonsini]

Anyone else remember “Front Line First” ?

[etudiant]

Is it sensible to have a 'strategic defense review' when the political framework is totally in flux? It is difficult to believe that anyone can develop an effective strategy when the goals are unspecified.

[dctyke]

Anyone else remember “Front Line First” ?

rapidly blunted by “Soldier First”............

[Asturias56]

"Is it sensible to have a 'strategic defense review'

Good question . One poster above suggested they were becoming institutionalised on a 5 year cycle which could be worrying. These days replacement kit seems to run on a 10-20 year cycle of identify- design- build- service for anything substantial - in that time you could 3-4 reviews any of which may change the framework/strategy.

Perhaps the Civil Service like the routine - that way you can always have a core of people working on the next one whether it is needed or not.

[Easy Street]

"Is it sensible to have a 'strategic defense review'

Good question . One poster above suggested they were becoming institutionalised on a 5 year cycle which could be worrying. These days replacement kit seems to run on a 10-20 year cycle of identify- design- build- service for anything substantial - in that time you could 3-4 reviews any of which may change the framework/strategy.

Perhaps the Civil Service like the routine - that way you can always have a core of people working on the next one whether it is needed or not.

In practice, the people who work on SDSRs spend the time between them keeping strategy under continual review, as it should always be. The 2015 SDSR was quickly overtaken by Brexit, Trump, and deteriorating relations with Russia. We don’t carry on as if nothing changes until the next review. I think you are really referring to the equipment plan, which is only one component of a SDSR.

Equipment plan reviews are an opportunity to ask the difficult questions like “is programme ‘x’ still going to deliver what we need in ‘y’ years’ time?”. Again these questions are asked more frequently during spending reviews, but the SDSR is the chance to take stock across the whole of Defence. As for SDSRs interfering with programme lifecycles, my simple response is “sunk cost fallacy”. If it’s no longer expected to be relevant or offer good value for future expenditure, bin it immediately irrespective of prior investment. (I recognise that politics often militates against this but civil servants are duty-bound to offer ministers the most economically-sound options). It’s a good thing we now question ourselves on this more often; you can blame the 12-year absence of comprehensive reviews after 1998 for the bloat and drift that compelled such over-correction in 2010.

[etudiant]

In practice, the people who work on SDSRs spend the time between them keeping strategy under continual review, as it should always be. The 2015 SDSR was quickly overtaken by Brexit, Trump, and deteriorating relations with Russia. We don’t carry on as if nothing changes until the next review. I think you are really referring to the equipment plan, which is only one component of a SDSR.

Equipment plan reviews are an opportunity to ask the difficult questions like “is programme ‘x’ still going to deliver what we need in ‘y’ years’ time?”. Again these questions are asked more frequently during spending reviews, but the SDSR is the chance to take stock across the whole of Defence. As for SDSRs interfering with programme lifecycles, my simple response is “sunk cost fallacy”. If it’s no longer expected to be relevant or offer good value for future expenditure, bin it immediately irrespective of prior investment. (I recognise that politics often militates against this but civil servants are duty-bound to offer ministers the most economically-sound options). It’s a good thing we now question ourselves on this more often; you can blame the 12-year absence of comprehensive reviews after 1998 for the bloat and drift that compelled such over-correction in 2010.

That is exactly the issue, the people doing the review are in an ongoing process, which makes it very difficult to recognize that the world has changed fundamentally.
Reality today is that managing China is the key issue and that Russia is a potential ally and asset in that task, rather than a liability. That is not the existing paradigm, so the ongoing strategy reviews are not very useful, as they still run on mindsets dating back to Soviet days.

[Easy Street]

That is exactly the issue, the people doing the review are in an ongoing process, which makes it very difficult to recognize that the world has changed fundamentally.
Reality today is that managing China is the key issue and that Russia is a potential ally and asset in that task, rather than a liability. That is not the existing paradigm, so the ongoing strategy reviews are not very useful, as they still run on mindsets dating back to Soviet days.

You’re talking about higher levels: national security strategy (Cabinet Office) and foreign policy (FCO). The MOD and especially the services have little influence in those circles, but FWIW I agree that our grand strategy leaves much to be desired. SDSRs are about how the higher-level stuff is actually implemented. Trouble is, when the higher-level objectives are so woolly (eg “project our influence”) it leaves plenty of scope for factional wrangling lower down the food chain.

[Asturias56]

Thank you for the thoughtful responses.

No doubt one option is to try and retain maximum flexibility in all the forces but that is generally expensive and is at variance with the political wish for simple answers

[Warren Peace]

Despite a lot of sensible, if misdirected, opinion on here, you all seem to have a peculiarly selfish focus.

The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.

You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.

The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.

Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.

The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.

Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.

[Finningley Boy]

Despite a lot of sensible, if misdirected, opinion on here, you all seem to have a peculiarly selfish focus.

The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.

You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.

The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.

Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.

The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.

Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.

The point you're making is now showing signs of age. Ever since the 1990s/end of the Cold War, we've had various hard headed evaluations telling us that the threat has changed, that defence has to be re-shaped, re-thought to meet the wars of tomorrow etc. Then we had operations (for better or worse, wrong or right) in Kosovo, Sierre Leone, Gulf 2, Libya and recently to eradicate Isis' operating base/strong hold in Syria and Northern Iraq, which has been successful by all accounts.

None of these operations went ahead without the principal involvement of Typhoons, Tornados, infantry in the case of Sierre, etc. The chap who met his end at the hands of the met last week, wasn't an indication of a national security/defence threat. He was an example of the loop holes in sentencing policy. It is still within the remit of the Police to deal with such matters. The Armed Forces exist to confront a larger extensive, more varied and comprehensive threat. It is certainly the case that there are now additional strands to the spectrum but it isn't the case that defence concerns have wholly transitioned, or are transitioning to a narrow world of cyber threats and suicide bombers. These are additional concerns, but much for now, are contained by the anti-terrorist squad and GCHQ. How would you redress the balance as you see it? Would even a single squadron of F-35s be redundant? Would we fair far better simply pouring all resources into countering cyber threats, intercepting Russian attempts to interfere with elections, monitoring extremists and vastly increasing the budget for CID and the prison system. Would this be comprehensive enough and leave nothing else to chance?

FB

[andrewn]

What amazing insight and perception you have warren! You're right the Red Arrows contribued absolutely nothing to helping prevent that latest terror attack on London Bridge. On that basis let's get them disbanded asap, and we funnel all the gazillions they cost us into counter terrorism. Job done, medals all round and tea and biscuits on top.

[Douglas Bahada]

Let's have the army on the streets with a shoot to kill policy then Finningly boy.

[heights good]

Despite a lot of sensible, if misdirected, opinion on here, you all seem to have a peculiarly selfish focus.

The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.

You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.

The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.

Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.

The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.

Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.

Without risking a stretch in Colchester, you are WAY WAY off the mark and appear to be demonstrating that you have not been 'read into' any operations in the last 15 yrs.

[heights good]

Despite a lot of sensible, if misdirected, opinion on here, you all seem to have a peculiarly selfish focus.

The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.

You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.

The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.

Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.

The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.

Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.

I would also add, the threat today, both realised and potential, is at the lowest point in real terms than it has been in the last 50 yrs. Although the attacks in London are truly tragic and I wish they could all be stopped, in the big scheme of things from the IRAs heyday 30 yrs ago, London is a lot safer place.

The 24 hour news cycle, social media and irresponsible journalism have caused the nation to live in fear of a threat which is miniscule, albeit tragic when it does happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#1970s

I would argue the single greatest threat to the UK today is 5G being installed which is giving non-friendly nations access to the ENTIRE countries data networks. Most people have no comprehension of what 5G is, it is NOT a mobile phone network, it is a data network that EVERYTHING can communicate with from mobile phones, computers, smart devices, your vehicle, credit cards etc. Think WiFi, but EVERYWHERE. If you would like some sleepless nights then I recommend this video. It's truly terrifying!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8IEtlOVzq4

[Asturias56]

I suppose we should be so frightened about Chinese 5G that we adopt American 5G instead - TBH I suspect the Chinese will have a lot harder job making anything useful out of my comms than the USA or GCHQ

Warren Peace's point is fatally flawed - even if we had everyone in the current UK Armed Forces redeployed against the "terrorist threat" it wouldn't stop things like the latest London Bridge shooting. It lasted 5 minutes - 300 seconds - and started inside a "private" building. Unless you have everyone in the UK guarded close up 24/7 by an armed guard (and the records show that they have to be guarded in case they go crazy and then the guards guards mighty go...) I can't see how you can do any better than they did last week.

[Finningley Boy]

Let's have the army on the streets with a shoot to kill policy then Finningly boy.

I imagine your caustic wit is aimed at Warren and not me? Only tis is the kind of flaw I've observed.

FB

[The Nip]

Then we had operations (for better or worse, wrong or right) in Kosovo, Sierre Leone, Gulf 2, Libya and recently to eradicate Isis' operating base/strong hold in Syria and Northern Iraq, which has been successful by all accounts.
FB

How is success measured in the Ops you listed above? Was there a stated aim prior to the UK's involvement that it would be declared a success when those aims were achieved?

[Fonsini]

In terms of defense spending and planning I do find myself wondering what our collective response would be if the Russians invaded let’s say...Estonia.

Would NATO go to war ?

Until you determine what threats exist and what your planned response to those threats would be (the scenario books) I don’t know how you can effectively allocate spending. We used to have a very clear remit of forward basing US strike aircraft and securing the GIUK gap for anti-submarine operations, now we seem to be more interested in force projection around the world with nuclear subs and carrier strike groups that we can ill-afford. I’m not convinced that is the best option for us.

[Asturias56]

Unfortunately expecting Politicians to face up to realities is almost impossible - it's only the drip drip drip of cash that eventually brings in some sense

The time they are forced to choose between (say) protecting pensions and (say) buying another 50 F-35's is when reality bites

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

The point you're making is now showing signs of age. Ever since the 1990s/end of the Cold War, we've had various hard headed evaluations telling us that the threat has changed, that defence has to be re-shaped, re-thought to meet the wars of tomorrow etc. Then we had operations (for better or worse, wrong or right) in Kosovo, Sierre Leone, Gulf 2, Libya and recently to eradicate Isis' operating base/strong hold in Syria and Northern Iraq, which has been successful by all accounts.

FB

Wasn't there something going on in Afghanistan for a while?

How is success measured in the Ops you listed above? Was there a stated aim prior to the UK's involvement that it would be declared a success when those aims were achieved?

A fair point, but not the fault of those who went. And having those assets allowed us at least to take part (again, rightly or wrongly, for better or worse). Was it Rod Stewart who trilled "Ain't it better to lose in love, than to never love at all?". Seems faintly apt...

[Asturias56]

"Times" this morning in their post -election section says that on Defence the Tories will want to spend more money on cyber stuff and satellites and that "hard decisions" will be required on some items..................

[heights good]

"Times" this morning in their post -election section says that on Defence the Tories will want to spend more money on cyber stuff and satellites and that "hard decisions" will be required on some items..................

Perhaps the Huawei 5G network will be turned off as part of that....

[BVRAAM]

"Times" this morning in their post -election section says that on Defence the Tories will want to spend more money on cyber stuff and satellites and that "hard decisions" will be required on some items..................

Investing heavily in cyber seems like a sensible idea, considering Russia's election interference record as of late.

Speaking of that... let's hope BoJo publishes that report very soon.

[Herod]

Investing heavily in cyber seems like a sensible idea, considering Russia's election interference record as of late.

Speaking of that... let's hope BoJo publishes that report very soon.

And the one about yesterday perhaps?

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-to-take-aim-at-mod-over-wasted-cash-2gsdzs9v5Boris Johnson to take aim at MoD over wasted cash
Boris Johnson (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/boris-johnson)’s most senior aide is to overhaul the way the Ministry of Defence spends billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in a move expected to alarm military chiefs and mandarins.

Dominic Cummings (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dominic-cummings-educated-remainer-types-failed-to-read-mood-of-the-country-fq0xp5g3k), regarded as a key architect of the prime minister’s election victory, will tackle military procurement as a priority for next year, allies have said. He is expected to audit recent purchases and review the development of costly military equipment, having previously described MoD procurement as “disastrous”. The aide has scorned “mediocre” officials and alleged corruption within the system. The acquisition of two aircraft carriers (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/giant-carriers-are-symbols-of-our-national-delusions-vzg0pshtb), at a cost of £6.2 billion, has been a specific focus of his concern.

One cabinet minister sought yesterday to play down the significance of Mr Cummings’s involvement in the defence (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/defence) review, but the revelation is likely to cause anxiety among senior military figures. A defence source said last night that although there was agreement that the processes needed reform, the armed forces would be concerned by Mr Cummings taking a leading role. “We have an early 20th-century system for a 21st-century world,” the insider said. “It requires review, but that should be carried out by people with expertise in procurement rather than in politics.”

Procurement will be one pillar of the defence and foreign policy review that the prime minister announced during the general election campaign. Mr Johnson (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/topic/boris-johnson) signalled that it would be the most comprehensive evaluation since the Cold War of Britain’s defence capabilities and emphasised the need for a technological upgrade of the armed forces........

A second key figure in the review has also been named. John Bew, a foreign policy expert who joined the No 10 policy unit this year, will report on Britain’s place in the world.

Mr Johnson’s robust rhetoric about the review has raised eyebrows among mandarins, and the involvement of Mr Cummings, who has sketched out some views on defence in a private blog, is likely to be met with trepidation. In a post published in March, before he joined the government, the former Vote Leave campaign director hit out at the programme to build the carriers, the second of which was commissioned last week. Calling the scheme a “farce”, he added that it “has continued to squander billions of pounds, enriching some of the worst corporate looters and corrupting public life via the revolving door of officials/lobbyists”. Scrutiny by MPs had been “contemptible”, he said, adding that the vessels “cannot be sent to a serious war against a serious enemy”.

Advocates of the carriers reject concerns about their vulnerability, insisting that they are crucial to Britain’s projection of hard power. Mr Cummings’s involvement in the defence review is likely to bring their future into question and revive rumours, recently dismissed by Ben Wallace (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britains-newest-warships-at-risk-from-chinese-vmdgdrvbq), the defence secretary, that at least one carrier could be sold to an ally or put into storage.

The Downing Street chief adviser has also written in support of greater investment in high-risk, high-impact research and development in science and technology. He is thought to have been behind the inclusion in the Tory manifesto of a pledge to create Britain’s first space command and the vow to boost public spending on research into space, computing, robotics and AI — all of which have crucial military, as well as civilian, functions. In his March blog he also pinpointed the military potential of drone swarms and AI robots. His posts praise the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), which claimed credit for inventing an early version of the internet and GPS. Mr Johnson has pledged to create a funding agency modelled on Darpa.

The civil service is also likely to scrutinise the work of Professor Bew for clues as to his foreign policy views. An Atlanticist and follower of Henry Kissinger, he has criticised the EU’s drive to uncouple from Washington, arguing that it has undermined the cohesiveness of Nato.

The defence review was welcomed by Michael Clarke, a former director of the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank. “A review of MoD procurement processes is long overdue,” he said. “Nobody in the government, the MoD or the armed forces thinks the present arrangements are satisfactory.

“But good luck with that,” he added. “Numerous attempts at reorganisation in recent decades have failed. Despite small improvements, the fundamentals of the system are no different now from 30 years ago.”......

[Mil-26Man]

Wait a minute, I thought that Corbyn was the threat for defence in this country. I mean, that's what the experts here were telling me...

[N707ZS]

When do we think Boris will buy some Gulf 6s or similar for 32 Squadron. He obviously likes jetting around if we can go by his electioneering.

[SASless]

The time they are forced to choose between (say) protecting pensions and (say) buying another 50 F-35's is when reality bites


Whose Pensions?

[Hot 'n' High]

Wait a minute, I thought that Corbyn was the threat for defence in this country. I mean, that's what the experts here were telling me.........well, a Defence Review under Johnson will lead to angst and surprises no doubt, but one under Corbyn? “Even more unpredictable” would be a polite way to describe that!

Interesting times ahead without doubt.....

[Asturias56]

We'll never find ou t tho I suspect it wouldn't have been as bad as people think - a lot of jobs to protect .

Someone in today's Times pointing out that a meaningful SDR requires the politicians to be realistic about what they want.............. now there IS an optimist............

[BVRAAM]

If there was an 'angry' reaction option, I'd have clicked it on ORAC's post.

This is very alarming, indeed. I am a philosophical conservative, something the Party as a whole is not - the need for strong security is always one of my decision makers when voting.
I hope Cummings is kept clear of any such Defence procurement review, this is for specialists, not political analysts.

[tucumseh]

BVRAAM

Agreed.

If 'procurement' needs to be discussed, the elephant in the room is why are so many complex programmes delivered to time, cost and performance with effortless competence, while lesser ones fail miserably - often in the same team.

MoD, government and the media simply won't go there, because the answer is unpalatable.

[BVRAAM]

BVRAAM

Agreed.

If 'procurement' needs to be discussed, the elephant in the room is why are so many complex programmes delivered to time, cost and performance with effortless competence, while lesser ones fail miserably - often in the same team.

MoD, government and the media simply won't go there, because the answer is unpalatable.

Deliberately cock it up so they pay you twice to "fix" it.

[tucumseh]

Deliberately cock it up so they pay you twice to "fix" it.

'Deleberately' is perhaps not the right word.

But very often the Service 'requirement' will be utter nonsense. It's a long time since MoD employed people to identify this. If by chance someone does, it's a career killer to speak up. So, a company can take advantage by delivering something it knows the Services don't want or need, or simply won't work in the intended application. And yes, get paid twice or more to deliver what is actually needed.

But, to be fair, I've known companies to refuse contracts until MoD asks for the correct thing. The classic example was RAF suppliers wanting to buy Active Dipping Sonar kit for C-130. GEC-Marconi fell over laughing, pointing out words like 'hover' in the spec Harrogate had called up.

I'd like to know what yer man means by 'corruption'. He needs to put up or shut up.

[Asturias56]

No doubt by "corruption" he was referring to the post Civil Service/Armed Forces employment by defence companies

As well as the Company's inflating the bill you of course get mission creep and the insistence on fitting new kit as the programme is under way - that suits the contractor, the Service and the front-line - but the taxpayer is hung out to dry

With respect to say "I hope Cummings is kept clear of any such Defence procurement review, this is for specialists, not political analysts." is about 40 years too late - the specialists are the people who have got us into this situation and without top level political direction there is absolutely no sign it will get better

[BVRAAM]

No doubt by "corruption" he was referring to the post Civil Service/Armed Forces employment by defence companies

As well as the Company's inflating the bill you of course get mission creep and the insistence on fitting new kit as the programme is under way - that suits the contractor, the Service and the front-line - but the taxpayer is hung out to dry

With respect to say "I hope Cummings is kept clear of any such Defence procurement review, this is for specialists, not political analysts." is about 40 years too late - the specialists are the people who have got us into this situation and without top level political direction there is absolutely no sign it will get better


In which case, it's for the Secretary of State for Defence and his Ministers to lead any such review.
If memory serves, all Ministers in the MOD have a military background, including Mr. Wallace, himself. They will therefore have a more realistic idea of the needs of the Services to prevent wastage. The Department has wasted billions in cancelled projects and delay, it can't continue but it must be looked at by those who know what they're doing.

Cummings was good for BREXIT (I may be biased) but he is not a smart choice for something so critical to our way of life.

[Hot 'n' High]

No doubt by "corruption" he was referring to the post Civil Service/Armed Forces employment by defence companies

There's 2 levels of such employment - firstly, the top-level (Board/Director) people who have the political leads back into the MoD/Government who are useful for securing Contracts and such like but don't actually deal in the detail. They are an "overhead" really.

What may be becoming a bigger issue is, due to the contraction of the Armed Services, there seem to be less people at middle management/design level within Industry with previous experience of working within the MoD (specifically operating on the Front Line) in a previous life. Just the impression I've got over the last few years. Some very bright people/boffins but, if you've not been in a foxhole at 3 a.m. in the freezing rain - well, you can't really imagine it! The result is that the chances of Tucs sanity check of MoD requirements/picking up practical issues with the design solutions by those people "in the know" within Industry reduces.

I've seen some howlers which have, sadly, cost someone something (nothing quite like the C130 dipping Sonar tho!) - which will inevitably lead back to the tax payer. Often, Industry genuinely thinks it knows what something means - but the assumptions are not based on experience, just hear-say. Inevitably, missmatches occur. This is not helped by people on the MoD side also seeming not to be well versed in some of this things they are asked to do. Deliberate deception? Actually, I've found (usually) everyone genuinely wants to do their best but, when the blind are leading the blind, things will creep past. The solution is probably unaffordable/Holy Grail-type stuff. But "Risk" estimates should build this factor in somehow.

Does H 'n' H have the answers? Hell, if you look at my Bank Balance, you'd realise not! I'd be a rich SOAB if I had! :ooh:

[Easy Street]

In which case, it's for the Secretary of State for Defence and his Ministers to lead any such review.
If memory serves, all Ministers in the MOD have a military background, including Mr. Wallace, himself. They will therefore have a more realistic idea of the needs of the Services to prevent wastage. The Department has wasted billions in cancelled projects and delay, it can't continue but it must be looked at by those who know what they're doing.

Cummings was good for BREXIT (I may be biased) but he is not a smart choice for something so critical to our way of life.

I’m afraid I disagree completely with your thoughts on the military backgrounds of MOD ministers. There are very few individuals in the military with the breadth of knowledge that would be useful to a minister and most of them are very senior officers of the sort who don’t tend to reappear as politicians. Having been a major or a lieutenant 10 or 15 years ago is damn near irrelevant and perhaps even risks bringing out-of-date preconceived ideas into an environment of perpetual inter-service rivalry. To be fair, most ex-military ministers are keenly aware of this and play down their service.

As to Cummings, well, I tend to agree that he won’t get very far with an acquisition review. But that’s not where I think the problem lies. The problem is in how the National Security apparatus (which includes the MOD, Cabinet Office, security services, FCO and No10) strategises, plans and prioritises. What is Britain’s place in the world? What do we need our forces to be able to do? What can we afford them to do, at what readiness and from what industrial base? Those are more political than military questions and Cummings, a disciple of Bismarck, understands that implicitly. The last couple of Defence reviews have not grappled properly with them, being more about electioneering (eg Army of 82,000), balancing the books (2010) and balancing single-service interests (2015).

Sir Mark Sedwill tried to crack this nut with his National Security Capabilities Review but Theresa May was too weak to prevent Gavin Williamson from splitting Defence off into its own completely inconsequential mini-review last year. The difference now is that Cummings has carte blanche to come in and call the Emperor (or Admiral or industry CEO...) naked, while having been thought likely to go to Washington as Ambassador, Sedwill is now staying put and reportedly on the same page as Cummings. Having those two working together puts paid to any notion of institutional resistance by MOD. And there are military people in the Department who positively welcome the opportunity for a long-overdue rinse through of exactly what we need and what we get from the billions we spend on Defence. Bring it on, I say.

[Asturias56]

"Times" trailing another £1 Bn overspend at the MoD - I'm beginning to see a pattern here - someone at the paper is clearly being fed all sorts of views and news to "set the scene" for the SDR

Shirley not Mr Cummings? ;)

[Easy Street]

HM The Queen has just announced an integrated foreign policy, defence and security review in her speech at the state opening of Parliament. So, just a little bit bigger than DE&S process...

[Hot 'n' High]

HM The Queen has just announced an integrated foreign policy, defence and security review in her speech at the state opening of Parliament. So, just a little bit bigger than DE&S process...


........ and that in itself could be very interesting as, often, the decisions taken in other areas result in changes which then DE&S and the Services (and Industry) have to rapidly gather up and stuff into a programme and make work - somehow. Again, individuals at the production level want to make things work and deliver (and sometimes stumble over) but, often, the curve-balls in from one or other wing means that the carefully planned shot at the goal needs to be hastily replanned. So the well-rehearsed, "low-risk", sure-footed strike into the net becomes a major but rather unseemly "high risk" scramble, sliding about in the mud and having to use the wrong foot to beat the goalie ahead of the Refs whistle which is about to be blown as the match has just been cut short by 10 minutes. The problems are really at both the macro and micro levels - always have been. The answer? Nah, Bank Account still empty - H 'n' H has still not found the answer! :uhoh:

[peter we]

Cummings was good for BREXIT (I may be biased) but he is not a smart choice for something so critical to our way of life.

Our economy is not critical but defense is? Good luck with that viewpoint.

Cumming is part of the deal we voted for, like it or lump it, its too late to get picky.

https://dominiccummings.com/an-index-of-blogs-articles-papers/

[Onceapilot]

Our economy is not critical but defense is? Good luck with that viewpoint.

Cumming is part of the deal we voted for, like it or lump it, its too late to get picky.



Is that the Royal WE, Peter?

OAP

[BVRAAM]

HM The Queen has just announced an integrated foreign policy, defence and security review in her speech at the state opening of Parliament. So, just a little bit bigger than DE&S process...

Foreign policy as well? Interesting.

Iran's about to buy a bunch of WMDs then..........allegedly.

[Asturias56]

I hope any review starts with the idea that the UK can't go and fight the Iranians, or the Chinese. These are manifestations of believing the UK still has an Empire.

What will be needed is a lot of Fisheries Protection vessels to keep Spanish fisherman at bay and illegal migrants coming from a France that will be less motivated to help

[pr00ne]

Direct quote from Ben Wallace outside the House of Commons just now'

"The military will have to cut it's cloth to meet it's ambitions."

There you have it, another Tory Options for change, Front Line First, Defence Costs Study capability cutting review is on the way and they've only just got back to the house!

With the fifth largest economy on the planet and one of the largest defence budgets in the world we still cannot maintain the hugely reduced capabilities we have. The MoD budget must be one of the most scandalous examples of waste of taxpayers money ever. Dominic Cummings will have his work cut out.

So all you Tory voters, how many capability(s) do you think you will lose first and what will they be.

[Asturias56]

"The military will have to cut it's cloth to meet it's ambitions."

and there was me thinking it was the Politicians who keep banging on about freedom of movement in the S China Sea and taking on the Chinese and opening bases in the Gulf again............... and it was clearly the Top Brass all the time........... :eek:

[Herod]

"The military will have to cut it's cloth to meet it's ambitions."

Is it just me who thinks that statement doesn't make sense? Surely one cuts one's cloth, or ambitions, to meet one's purse.

[BVRAAM]

Direct quote from Ben Wallace outside the House of Commons just now'

"The military will have to cut it's cloth to meet it's ambitions."

There you have it, another Tory Options for change, Front Line First, Defence Costs Study capability cutting review is on the way and they've only just got back to the house!

With the fifth largest economy on the planet and one of the largest defence budgets in the world we still cannot maintain the hugely reduced capabilities we have. The MoD budget must be one of the most scandalous examples of waste of taxpayers money ever. Dominic Cummings will have his work cut out.

So all you Tory voters, how many capability(s) do you think you will lose first and what will they be.


Well, you lefties weaponised the NHS, forcing the Conservatives to enshrine a whopping £34Bn in law - an utterly ridiculous sum that wasn't needed, which could have partly gone on defence. But here we are.....

The point is that we have a finite budget and political pressure should not be the single decider on how money is spent, if we want to avoid damaging cuts to vital services such as Defence.

[downsizer]

I'd settle for working heating after the second winter without any at work.

[Easy Street]

Asturias56 and Herod - agreed. SofS’s statement (as quoted) was nonsensical, which rather confirms my earlier point about a military background not being a reliable indicator of ministerial competence. It doesn't bode well for coherence of the supposed integrated review; the level of ambition should be certainly be dictated to MOD by Government and the HM Treasury-supplied cloth is cut into service-sized chunks by MOD, not the services themselves. If SofS thinks the services are guilty of pursuing their own narrow interests, he is more than capable of constraining them should he wish to do so.

On the other hand, perhaps SofS is just playing cynical politics, setting the services up to be seen as cutting themselves so that the Government doesn't have to take the blame. I can easily imagine Cummings spinning a line such as 'the Army actively wanted to reduce its headcount to 60,000 due to recent advances in training methods and equipment automation' and ruthlessly discrediting any retired general who dared to disagree...

[BVRAAM]

Asturias56 and Herod - agreed. SofS’s statement (as quoted) was nonsensical, which rather confirms my earlier point about a military background not being a reliable indicator of ministerial competence. It doesn't bode well for coherence of the supposed integrated review; the level of ambition should be certainly be dictated to MOD by Government and the HM Treasury-supplied cloth is cut into service-sized chunks by MOD, not the services themselves. If SofS thinks the services are guilty of pursuing their own narrow interests, he is more than capable of constraining them should he wish to do so.

On the other hand, perhaps SofS is just playing cynical politics, setting the services up to been seen as cutting themselves so that the Government doesn't have to take the blame. I can easily imagine Cummings spinning a line such as 'the Army actively wanted to reduce its headcount to 60,000 due to recent advances in training methods and equipment automation' and ruthlessly discrediting any retired general who dared to disagree...

I hadn't thought of that.

Makes sense - they've done it before......

[Asturias56]

I'm sure the Govt promised the £ 38 Bn for the NHS as it was the minimum they thought they could get away with in the election campaign.

Sadly it is clear that the SDR is going to be another round of cuts - perhaps not in cash terms (probably +3%) but in roles & capabilities. I don't see that there is any sign of an open mind here or the glimmerings of the idea that maybe, just maybe, the Great British Public would support paying more for defence if it was properly explained to them.

[Finningley Boy]

Asturia,

You're depressingly quite right, yet again, not a mention anywhere, not in any paper or journal of National Security and Defence. Just snippets about counter-Terrorism and Police powers I think got a mention. Nothing at all about actual Defence concerns, Foreign policy, the future blend of manned weapons and automation etc. Whether there is likely to be additional personnel recruited, additional units? Hah! But if something dramatic does transpire, it'll be the hot topic and how the Tories are worse at defence than Labour really! The Tories are too scared to compare defence requirements with the NHS, DHSS, climate change, education etc, even when a landslide comes their way because they fear they've been elected to deliver something closer to a socialist manifesto.

Plus there is every reason to suspect that the conservative party today hold defence in as low a regard as the left do. They're just concerned with avoiding spending money and privatizing what they can get away with.

FB

PS

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/20/armed-forces-chiefs-given-one-priority-fix-mod-can-ask-money/

[NutLoose]

So Dominic Cummings will be having a major say in the defence restructuring.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/eu-braced-for-harder-brexit-as-boris-johnson-rules-out-following-brussels-rules/ar-BBYde1i?li=BBoPWjQ

[peter we]

Is that the Royal WE, Peter?

OAP

Nope, we is in the country. I voted against the nut job.

[Asturias56]

Here's the report from the Torygraph - thanks Nut (it's really not a nice read...)
____________________________________________________________ ________________________________

The Armed Forces Chiefs have each been given one priority to fix before the MoD can ask the Treasury for more money, the Defence secretary has said. The availability of ships, army recruitment and the length of time to train fighter jet pilots were singled out as areas requiring the biggest improvements across Britain’s military forces. Ben Wallace said his department had to “cut our cloth to match our ambition” and told the three service heads “your appetite has to match your stomach”.

Speaking on the Political Thinking podcast with Nick Robinson, the Defence Secretary said he had given each of the service chiefs a very clear priority. The First Sea Lord has been told “get what you’ve got, working,” a reference to the engine problems suffered by the Royal Navy’s Type-45 Destroyers. The Defence Secretary said he would be “laughed out of the building” by the Treasury if he sought extra money for more ships without fixing the existing problems in the fleet. An MoD spokesman said HMS Dauntless will be the first vessel through a “propulsion improvement programme” which is due to start in early 2020.

The head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, has been told to improve recruitment, after recent figures showed only around 74,000 soldiers were “fully trade trained” from a requirement of 82,000. “What’s the point of new infantry armoured vehicles,” the Defence Secretary asked, “if there’s no-one to go in the back of them?”.

Air Chief Marshal Mike Wigston, the head of the Royal Air Force, has been told to fix the system for training new fighter pilots. Referring to a “glut of about 250 trainee pilots” Ben Wallace said it is currently taking around seven years to train new pilots, instead of the expected three years. “By that time half of them say ‘I’m off to fly for Ryanair’,” he said. An MoD spokesman said: "We have sufficient numbers of aircrew to meet our current front line operational commitments. The Military Flying Training System is the biggest transformation of UK military aircrew training in a generation. Although we acknowledge there have been some challenges, the transition to the new system is now well underway and a steady improvement in aircrew throughput is being seen in all areas."

The Defence Secretary said it was “accepted across the board” that the last Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) in 2015 had not been funded correctly, leaving a “shortfall of money” in Defence. His department had to show it had “sorted out our house” if it wanted to secure more money in future spending rounds, he said. Responding to reports Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister’s adviser, is considering leading a reform of the MoD having described the military procurement process as a “farce” Mr Wallace said: “Dom is full of amazing ideas where he has spotted loads of improvements in things like infrastructure improvement and technology procurement. I’m incredibly supportive of what he’s been talking about. “He’s keen to explore some of the challenges.”

Defence experts say the anticipated review in 2020 could be “a true reflection of an SDSR rather than the series of updates that we’ve had of late. The 2010 and 2015 reviews were seen to have been driven by the “financial envelope” they were forced to fit into, according to former Rear Admiral Simon Williams. However, R Adm Williams worries a review led by the MoD would be dismissed as outdated thinking, and that the Prime Minister’s advisers think “we can be much smarter than they are. The problem is that everybody is an armchair expert in the business of defence,” he said.

R Adm Williams suggested a review of, for example, the health service would be conducted by people with “knowledge” and “experience” of the subject, rather than an unelected official. Dominic Cummings is a “shot across the bows” of the MoD, according to security experts. Malcolm Chalmers, Deputy Director-General of the Royal United Services Institute, said: “The strategic significance of the Cummings intervention is a signal to the MoD: ‘we don’t think you’re very efficient, so if you ask for more money you’ll have to find more savings yourself’. Historically one of the strongest weapons No. 10 and the Cabinet Office have with the MoD in budgetary discussions is to say ‘you guys don’t really have your [stuff] together so you’re not going to get any more money until you do get it together. Once they accept the MoD is running things as well as they can, then they address the capability requirements and the threat. On that terrain No. 10 and the Treasury are on weaker ground politically, but not the inefficiency ground. It puts the MoD on the defensive and does play into the spending round dialogue.”

The Defence Secretary's comments come as a House of Commons paper released this week said a decision will be needed next year about replacing the nuclear warhead used in Britain's Trident missiles. The current warhead is expected to retire in the late 2030s, but a decision to start planning for a replacement needs to be made in the next few months.
A 2006 White Paper suggested the warhead replacement programme would cost around £2-3 billion (in 2006 prices). A decision on the warhead programme was delayed in the 2010 Defence review.

[Easy Street]

Good blog here (https://thinpinstripedline.********.com/2019/12/the-nightmare-before-christmas-thoughts.html?m=1) from Sir Humphrey (and not as rabidly pro-RN as he can sometimes be... I do sometimes wonder if there is more than one of him contributing to the blog).

[Onceapilot]

Here's the report from the Torygraph - thanks Nut (it's really not a nice read...)
____________________________________________________________ ________________________________

The Armed Forces Chiefs have each been given one priority to fix before the MoD can ask the Treasury for more money, the Defence secretary has said. The availability of ships, army recruitment and the length of time to train fighter jet pilots were singled out as areas requiring the biggest improvements across Britain’s military forces. Ben Wallace said his department had to “cut our cloth to match our ambition” and told the three service heads “your appetite has to match your stomach”.

Speaking on the Political Thinking podcast with Nick Robinson, the Defence Secretary said he had given each of the service chiefs a very clear priority. The First Sea Lord has been told “get what you’ve got, working,” a reference to the engine problems suffered by the Royal Navy’s Type-45 Destroyers. The Defence Secretary said he would be “laughed out of the building” by the Treasury if he sought extra money for more ships without fixing the existing problems in the fleet. An MoD spokesman said HMS Dauntless will be the first vessel through a “propulsion improvement programme” which is due to start in early 2020.

The head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, has been told to improve recruitment, after recent figures showed only around 74,000 soldiers were “fully trade trained” from a requirement of 82,000. “What’s the point of new infantry armoured vehicles,” the Defence Secretary asked, “if there’s no-one to go in the back of them?”...................

...........The Defence Secretary's comments come as a House of Commons paper released this week said a decision will be needed next year about replacing the nuclear warhead used in Britain's Trident missiles. The current warhead is expected to retire in the late 2030s, but a decision to start planning for a replacement needs to be made in the next few months.
A 2006 White Paper suggested the warhead replacement programme would cost around £2-3 billion (in 2006 prices). A decision on the warhead programme was delayed in the 2010 Defence review.

Insert "Laughing Policeman" Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........etc,etc.
We have been here for a very long time. I blame the Politco's,...it is their trainset! :p

OAP

[Yarpy]

[QUOTE=Asturias56;10644946]Here's the report from the Torygraph - thanks Nut (it's really not a nice read...)
____________________________________________________________ ________________________________

The First Sea Lord has been told “get what you’ve got, working,” a reference to the engine problems suffered by the Royal Navy’s Type-45 Destroyers.

"And I thought so little, they rewarded me, by making me the ruler of the Queen's Navee"

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/admirals-thrown-to-sharks-as-top-heavy-navy-tries-to-cut-costs-bhwm5d856

Admirals thrown to sharks as ‘top-heavy’ navy tries to cut costs

Five Royal Navy admirals face walking the plank while the fleet’s Portsmouth headquarters is to be cut by almost half in the biggest shake-up of the high command in a generation.......

The navy has long been criticised for having more admirals than warships and the new defence secretary, Ben Wallace, has lambasted navy chiefs for the number of ships and submarines stuck in harbour awaiting repairs or lacking crews.....
Admiral Tony Radakin, the first sea lord, has decided to move fast to make the navy less top heavy and hopes to transfer hundreds of officers and sailors from shore jobs to the frontline fleet. “The navy leadership have concluded that if they don’t do this, they will have something worse imposed on them,” a senior defence source said.

Navy officers have dubbed the first sea lord “Radical Radakin” for his attempt to cut the number of admirals from 42 to 37. In the frame for the axe are five rear admirals — so-called two-star officers — including the head of sea training and other senior administrative roles. More junior officers will be given responsibility for their work.

All five admiral roles are going from the Navy’s Whale Island headquarters near Portsmouth naval base, where 14 admirals work. The rest of the admirals are based outside the fleet in the Ministry of Defence main building in London, at the ministry’s procurement organisation at Bristol and in several Nato headquarters around Europe. These officers are not under Radakin’s direct control.....

Radakin has also ordered an end to the job for life culture among middle ranking officers, with new employment rules for more than 200 captain-ranked officers — equivalent to army colonels and RAF group captains — being brought in. Previously they could serve automatically until the age of 55. In future they will have to retire if they are not selected for a new job after completing two three-year postings. This could lead to scores of officers retiring early in their mid forties and allow dozens of desk jobs to be cut.........

[Asturias56]

"This could lead to scores of officers retiring early in their mid forties and allow dozens of desk jobs to be cut........." which suggests they exist now to provide a home for mid-ranking, middle aged officers..................

Part of the problem is of course one of nomenclature - when you say "Admiral" 99% of the population think of Nelson, personally directing the action, or maybe sitting in a bunker moving wooden warship models on a map of the N Atlantic to trap the "Bismark". Most of the sainted 42 are really Senior Managers and should have titles that reflect this - then you could be "Captain and VP Electronics" .

[pr00ne]

BVRAAM,

"​​​​​​Well, you lefties weaponised the NHS, forcing the Conservatives to enshrine a whopping £34Bn in law - an utterly ridiculous sum that wasn't needed, which could have partly gone on defence. But here we are.....

The point is that we have a finite budget and political pressure should not be the single decider on how money is spent, if we want to avoid damaging cuts to vital services such as Defence."

Er, I think that "us lefties" did no such thing. Us lefties, and for that tired old worn out cliche you could substitute "99.9% of the British public" merely wanted an end to drastic reductions in Tory health funding which we have seen for the last decade, and the Johnson £34b is about half of what was invested annually in the Blair years. As to your assertion that it is a ridiculous sum that wasn't needed, I am afraid that statement just shows how out of touch you are.

[ORAC]

Just puzzled at how he might change their terms of service and retire them before 55, unless the RN was to offer massive redundancy payments and immediate full pensions at the final rate. Which would eliminate any savings.

[Just This Once...]

The RN used to have a more expansive up/out policy than the Army and RAF. The forced retirement option is already in QRs and was regularly exercised at 2-star level and more recently at 1-star level. Unsurprising I know of a couple of guys elect to stay at OF5 and keep a job / pension / CEA rather than take a risky push to star rank. I guess they will just bring the QR forced retirement in at a lower rank and only apply it on those who accept the ToS that goes with a promotion offer.

Of course, the law of unintended consequences will kick-in with a higher rate of promotions to keep the pipe fresh with new blood to replace those dumped-out of the system before their full pension point. Recruitment, training pipeline, retention and appropriate experience levels must just be peachy in the RN to suggest this kind of policy.

[alfred_the_great]

The RN used to have a more expansive up/out policy than the Army and RAF. The forced retirement option is already in QRs and was regularly exercised at 2-star level and more recently at 1-star level. Unsurprising I know of a couple of guys elect to stay at OF5 and keep a job / pension / CEA rather than take a risky push to star rank. I guess they will just bring the QR forced retirement in at a lower rank and only apply it on those who accept the ToS that goes with a promotion offer.

Of course, the law of unintended consequences will kick-in with a higher rate of promotions to keep the pipe fresh with new blood to replace those dumped-out of the system before their full pension point. Recruitment, training pipeline, retention and appropriate experience levels must just be peachy in the RN to suggest this kind of policy.

or there's fairly strong anecdata that Cdrs are leaving because they've become stalled at OF4. Back in the day, Capts at 6 years seniority were also invited to retire if they weren't selected for 2*...

[VinRouge]

or there's fairly strong anecdata that Cdrs are leaving because they've become stalled at OF4. Back in the day, Capts at 6 years seniority were also invited to retire if they weren't selected for 2*...
No different than graduates being offered an option at 12 years if they haven't made it past the "lowly" rank of Flt Lt I suppose.

The system doesn't seem to get that individuals might be quite happy with their lot at their current rank.... apparently we all need to be chiselling up the structure towards CDS...

[Easy Street]

The RN used to have a more expansive up/out policy than the Army and RAF. The forced retirement option is already in QRs and was regularly exercised at 2-star level and more recently at 1-star level.


That is a tri-service thing, not just RN, and used at 1* by the RAF quite frequently over recent years. RAF Manning has examined expanding the scope to OF5s but I’ve not heard anything on that for a couple of years. Second career prospects for a late-40s gp capt probably aren’t as good as for someone leaving at their 20/40 pension point, so there would be quite a lot of risk in sticking with the service at the mid-career point. If the terms of service are changed, introducing a way of stepping directly across to sqn ldr PAS at the equivalent pay point would offer an attractive (to some) safety net for use if their career thrust stalls.

[alfred_the_great]

No different than graduates being offered an option at 12 years if they haven't made it past the "lowly" rank of Flt Lt I suppose.

The system doesn't seem to get that individuals might be quite happy with their lot at their current rank.... apparently we all need to be chiselling up the structure towards CDS...

Whilst I've no doubt individuals might be happy earning top whack OF5 pay, why should the Service be subsiding 15+ years of it?

[Bing]

This could lead to scores of officers retiring early in their mid forties and allow dozens of desk jobs to be cut.........

So they're saying these officers are sat at desks doing made up work? Or that it's just going to be dumped on someone else?

[Countdown begins]

So they're saying these officers are sat at desks doing made up work? Or that it's just going to be dumped on someone else?
I don’t think that’s the whole picture, but yes if they’ve gone stale but on good money they will just rotate ad infinitum.
we can all identify with these rotations where time ‘runs ou’ And they watch their replacement take over. Then the circle continues.
Look at Manning, nothing has changed or improved, even when we are short of the valued branches.

[alfred_the_great]

Some positions will be civilianised, some output will stop/change, some will remain military.

There are enough Naval officers in and around Portsmouth that finding those who are willing to go into CS TACOS + Mil
pension that we can maintain SQEP.

[Just This Once...]

That is a tri-service thing, not just RN, and used at 1* by the RAF quite frequently over recent years.

Sorry, probably didn't make myself clear - the second sentence was for the tri-service side; the RN used to have it much lower down the rank scale, with even lt cdr and cdr promotions not necessarily seeing you through to NRD.

The forced retirement works ok at 2-star level as, within reason, they can pick their exit timescale and the SSRB keeps them out of poverty. There is a well-established pool of 2-star holding officers picking up odd-jobs whilst they prepare the golden parachute. Lower down the food chain you will just be burdened with a regular posting until you get the boot.

[heights good]

It is worth remembering that 1* and above receive appointments, not postings. Part of this means (I think) that they can be let go at any time without penalty versus postings until their end of service date for those <1*.

[Harley Quinn]

Some positions will be civilianised, some output will stop/change, some will remain military.

There are enough Naval officers in and around Portsmouth that finding those who are willing to go into CS TACOS + Mil
pension that we can maintain SQEP.

That is probably true, but you mention maintaining SWEP. Where does that come from next time round? The posts and supporting chain that provides this generation's SQEP will be cut,what succession training then?

PS if these folk provide SQEP then they probably bring something very useful to the party other than blind greasy pole climbing, aiming for that top job.

[Finningley Boy]

Interesting piece in Air Forces monthly regarding the Arctic. Essentially the retreating Polar Ice cap is providing an opportunity for exploiting resources. This hasn't been lost on the Russians. The Americans are trying to establish a more visible presence here currently to the extent of simply making sure the Kremlin knows that the USAF and others have a substantial enough reach across the Arctic Circle B-2s and B-52s have been overflying the region just to make their presence felt. AM Gerry Mayhew says we need to "push the message out that we're ready to do anything anywhere".

Evidently the movement of the ice caps recently has opened up new sometime sea lanes. This all adds grist to the Russian endeavours to explore the advantage of mineral excavation in the newly exposed parts of the region. This more specifically means Oil, Gas and Fishing rights inside a 200 NM exclusion zone which Moscow is seeking to impose/defend.

FB

[Asturias56]

well the Russians have always tried to open up the NE Passage - and it looks as if it'll be easier in the future - with global warming a lot of Russia will be a less hostile climatic region

The usual legal rules will apply to boundaries - so expect a lot of yelling and screaming from everyone who has skin in the game - - Russia, Norway, Denmark/greenland, Canada & the USA

Even more "9-dash lines" I expect.............

[BVRAAM]

An MoD spokesman said: "We have sufficient numbers of aircrew to meet our current front line operational commitments."

The chaps I have spoken to with very recent front-line experience (fast jet) don't seem to share the Spokeman's opinion.

I have no reason to believe they're lying, so why is the public being deceived?

[Easy Street]

The chaps I have spoken to with very recent front-line experience (fast jet) don't seem to share the Spokeman's opinion.

I have no reason to believe they're lying, so why is the public being deceived?

The spokesman didn’t say “We have sufficient numbers of aircrew to meet our current front line operational commitments, conduct operational training, deliver overseas engagement and support to exports, and meet our Phase 2 instructor manning requirements while offering career satisfaction and a work-life balance deemed sustainable in the long term at current and expected remuneration levels.” Your answer may lie somewhere in the difference between those statements.

”Why is the public being deceived?” is quite the rhetorical question for someone who apparently wishes to join the military. As I think you have been advised before, try not to see the world in black and white: you will be perpetually confounded if you do.

[BVRAAM]

The spokesman didn’t say “We have sufficient numbers of aircrew to meet our current front line operational commitments, conduct operational training, deliver overseas engagement and support to exports, and meet our Phase 2 instructor manning requirements while offering career satisfaction and a work-life balance deemed sustainable in the long term at current and expected remuneration levels.” Your answer may lie somewhere in the difference between those statements.

”Why is the public being deceived?” is quite the rhetorical question for someone who apparently wishes to join the military. We are not in the habit of confirming or denying every statement made about us, even if true. As I think you have been advised before, try not to see the world in black and white: you will be perpetually confounded if you do.


It was not a rhetorical question, it was a question asked that I'd like an answer to, from somebody who is rather tired of seeing our treasured Armed Forces constantly sidelined in favour of the NHS, welfare and other such matters, through a lack of honesty at the political level, by politicians who are scared to death of being voted out of Office for failing to meet socialist demands and neglecting their primary responsibility - the defence of the nation.
It's because of this, that the Services are cut to the bone because both parties cannot grasp the basic principles of Keynesian economics.

It's very well our politicians saying that "we live in an uncertain world and our Armed Forces must have the right tools for the job," but it means absolutely nothing if they don't act on it, and implement policies that get the funding in place, the equipment bought, maintained and kept relevant, and young people are given the incentive to join whilst the experienced people can be retained more easily through that better work-life balance you mentioned. To achieve this, a grown-up conversation needs to be had about what we're spending and how much of it is being flushed down the toilet. Nobody with influence seems to have the cajones to have that conversation.

[Easy Street]

It was not a rhetorical question, it was a question asked that I'd like an answer to,


Your question “why is the public being deceived?” infers that the public is being deceived. Unless you can demonstrate that to be a fact, the question is rhetorical. I suggest there’s more chance of seeing Santa Claus than there is of seeing a MOD spokesperson going on record with “we’re deceiving the public about pilot manning to keep Defence off the news agenda” or similar.

Edited to add: your reference to Keynesian economics is wayyyyy out of left field. The Government has any number of better ways to stimulate the domestic economy than by spending on Defence, where much of the cash ends up overseas unless ‘buy British’ is enforced. Even then, the ‘British’ companies aren’t 100% British, and stand by for complaints about our forces not being allowed to have the best US/Israeli/other kit!

[BVRAAM]

Your question “why is the public being deceived?” infers that the public is being deceived. Unless you can demonstrate that to be a fact, the question is rhetorical. I suggest there’s more chance of seeing Santa Claus than there is of seeing a MOD spokesperson going on record with “we’re deceiving the public about pilot manning to keep Defence off the news agenda” or similar.

Edited to add: your reference to Keynesian economics is wayyyyy out of left field. The Government has any number of better ways to stimulate the domestic economy than by spending on Defence, where much of the cash ends up overseas unless ‘buy British’ is enforced. Even then, the ‘British’ companies aren’t 100% British, and stand by for complaints about our forces not being allowed to have the best US/Israeli/other kit!



Which wouldn't be entirely accurate.

It's been said that the UK was offered F-22 in the 90's (reliable source), but the cost was astronomical and unjustifiable given our commitment to Typhoon at the time. Besides, it's not as if we need it now we have the F-35, which is just as good, if not better. It's on public record that President Reagan offered Maggie Thatcher the chance for the UK to invest in the F-117, but she turned it down because the existence of the jet was still classified at that time.

We also have Rivet Joint - one of America's most sensitive and strategically vital assets in their inventory. No other country has this. We stand more chance of being allowed to buy America's most sensitive kit than any other nation, but sadly every shopping list needs a budget.

[VinRouge]

There are by far too many non-jobs out there, particularly at a Headquarters and Command level.

The issue is not bred by those in posts (protectionism). The issue is generated by a procurement and sustainment system that is utterly incompetent, ignores frontline requirement and refuses to modernise. Worst offenders being budgetary control, a refusal to temporarily cut output to fund modernising requirements and Commercial, who seem to be scared of their own shadow and refuse to accept even the slightest risk if they were to own it. Which means the frontline now wear the risk as a result of their risk dodging. Each Headquarters requires it’s own commercial department, managed by the 1 Star, who can manage and accept commercial risk for reward. Get a few decent ones on contract, and pay them market rates. Not the typical polytechnic output.

People need to learn to find a reason to say no, rather than default to no on each occasion. For my hatred of Gollum like Cummins, he does have this aspect right when it comes to MoD.

Oh, the days of getting promoted by organising a decent summer ball and sucking off the boss need to end. We should be promoting leaders, initiative takers and people for being professionally competent. Not being in a job where you have spare time due to aircraft unserviceability to organise a better party for
the staish than your mukka on an operationally overcommitted squadron across the road from your own.

[alfred_the_great]

There are by far too many non-jobs out there, particularly at a Headquarters and Command level.

The issue is not bred by those in posts (protectionism). The issue is generated by a procurement and sustainment system that is utterly incompetent, ignores frontline requirement and refuses to modernise. Worst offenders being budgetary control, a refusal to temporarily cut output to fund modernising requirements and Commercial, who seem to be scared of their own shadow and refuse to accept even the slightest risk if they were to own it. Which means the frontline now wear the risk as a result of their risk dodging. Each Headquarters requires it’s own commercial department, managed by the 1 Star, who can manage and accept commercial risk for reward. Get a few decent ones on contract, and pay them market rates. Not the typical polytechnic output.

People need to learn to find a reason to say no, rather than default to no on each occasion. For dmy hatred of Gollum like Cummins, he does have this aspect right when it comes to MoD.

Oh, the days of getting promoted by organising a decent summer ball and sucking off the boss need to end. We should be promoting leaders, initiative takers and people for being professionally competent. Not being in a job where you have spare time due to aircraft unserviceability to organise a better party for
the staish than your mukka on an operationally overcommitted squadron across the road from your own.

so the kind of initiative takers who do the right initiative things, not the ones who use their initiative and spare capacity - created by faults beyond their control - to organise and plan a high profile and complex event that betters the minimal social life that remains in the Armed Forces?

That is to say, some initiative is better than others?

or we should Career foul those who've been streamed into an aircraft type, by a system that is beyond their control, with an inadequate stores and support solution created likely before they got to secondary school. That kind of leadership and professional competence they'd expect from their Senior Officers?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Alfred - I would argue that there is a demand in the chain to see "spare capacity outside of your primary duty". This rather implies that all primary duties are equal, which they certainly are not! There is also an implicit assumption that these are completely removed from your primary duty - someone who organises the summer ball gets extra credit, someone who sorts the squadron/force with extra warfighting capability with their spare capacity doesn't get the same recognition as it's seen as just part of their job.

Where secondary duties have a place is to allow someone to fill gaps in their report that they couldn't by doing their primary duty. We seem to have lost sight of that and have let the tail start wagging the dog.

Back on topic to the SDSR - I'd be very happy to see some focus on improving retention and serviceability of existing kit, rather than shiny headlines.

[VinRouge]

That is to say, some initiative is better than others?


There is no initiative involved. The highest visibility, lowest effort, most promotable to-the-board duties are allocated to the guy/gal who has made the best effort to snorkel the bosses oboe over the past 12 months. The system is buggering up the modern RAF by overlooking technical experts and role professionals over narcissists and butt snorkelers.

Woe be tired for pointing out the latest and greatest “plan” is about as deep as the PowerPoint presentation it resides upon and that without resource and cutting extant output, plans are not going to happen. You know, common sense. Refusing to drink the Kool Aid doesn’t get you far, as it doesn’t lend itself to the oboe snorkelling I mentioned previously.

[alfred_the_great]

There is no initiative involved. The highest visibility, lowest effort, most promotable to-the-board duties are allocated to the guy/gal who has made the best effort to snorkel the bosses oboe over the past 12 months. The system is buggering up the modern RAF by overlooking technical experts and role professionals over narcissists and butt snorkelers.

Woe be tired for pointing out the latest and greatest “plan” is about as deep as the PowerPoint presentation it resides upon and that without resource and cutting extant output, plans are not going to happen. You know, common sense. Refusing to drink the Kool Aid doesn’t get you far, as it doesn’t lend itself to the oboe snorkelling I mentioned previously.


interestingly, nearly all the Wg Cdrs and above I've met have been switched on operators and generally nice people.

the only exception would be an Gp Capt who was the textbook definition of a company man.

Oh, and R**** R******* who is utter poison.

[VinRouge]

interestingly, nearly all the Wg Cdrs and above I've met have been switched on operators and generally nice people.

the only exception would be an Gp Capt who was the textbook definition of a company man.

Oh, and R**** R******* who is utter poison.
I would agree. Apart from those who have a vision.... of themselves at the top. Used to stay well clear. That railroad ain’t stopping and I didn’t fancy two steel wheels across my chest by getting in the way.

[alfred_the_great]

Retention has not been grasped. It makes fantastic reading in a glossy, or a paper, but has anyone got an example of a retention initiative? The system is in total paralysis now.

RAF is miles ahead of the other services.

[Countdown begins]

RAF is miles ahead of the other services.

Has the Senior Service started to look at it, or is it more famine and feast with bodies?

[Hot 'n' High]

There is no initiative involved. The highest visibility, lowest effort, most promotable to-the-board duties are allocated to the guy/gal who has made the best effort to snorkel the bosses oboe over the past 12 months. The system is buggering up the modern RAF by overlooking technical experts and role professionals over narcissists and butt snorkelers.

Woe be tired for pointing out the latest and greatest “plan” is about as deep as the PowerPoint presentation it resides upon and that without resource and cutting extant output, plans are not going to happen. You know, common sense. Refusing to drink the Kool Aid doesn’t get you far, as it doesn’t lend itself to the oboe snorkelling I mentioned previously.


:ok: Love it VR! You are soooo cynical but, in much of what you say, absolutely spot on in your assessment.

As in all things, both the cr@p and the cream float to the top in my experience - leading, I'm sure, to a rather strange scumy-mix floating way, way above my head and some *'s wondering how their fellow VSOs ever got there. It's usually the mid-performers who suffer; those who spend too much time doing a good job to go "oboe snorkelling" (that's a new one on me!! :p) but are not those whose amazing natural ability gets them promoted. You can guess where H 'n' H was - even if I say so myself!!! Mind you, think things are bad in the Mil re "odd" promotions? It looks the same/worse outside with some right clowns promoted to senior (even Director-level) positions with all sorts of personal grudges against fellow employees and the actual job in hand being the last thing on their minds - often the political (little "p") knives hidden behind backs at meetings are amazing. "I'll talk absolute bolleaux (and stab Fred in the back in the process) - but, if I sound good who cares? Promotion here I come"!

But Mil retention (as is the same for Industry) is a raft of factors; having the kit to do the job, having time to do the job, having fun doing the job (i.e. good people who work hard/play hard/don't shaft you), adequate time with the family, adequate pay, realistic/sane promotion prospects... The days of the "3 Badge ABs" have long gone but having experienced people at all levels is a real help, but only if you manage the danger of stagnation (ie useless 3 Badge ABs as opposed to really good ones who are just happy excelling at their level). Apart from the warfighting, it's the same - except Industry has the ability to pay individuals a bit more to stay - tho Unions keep an eye on that too so even that ability can be limited. And the civie "3 Badge AB's" (useless ones that is) and higher abound in Industry!

For the Mil, getting all that right is probably impossible, particularly as tasking remains high, but money is tight. Essentially, Politicians trying to do too much with too little. So, Career Managers (or whatever they are callled today) do their best to match the flow to the demand but, one could argue, if the tasking exceeds the budget, individual initiatives can, at best, try and balance things out at the odd pinch-point... today. Tomorrow? Well, who knows! I recall being paid the 2nd installment of a Retention Bonus .. while on the list for the next round of redundancies! In industry, resources are often shuffled between programmes at very short notice depending on the depth of the mire they are in vs the profit they will generate for Shareholders so there is more flex there.

So, will we see the "perfect initiatives" for each Service? Well, maybe some progress will be made under the current Boards but, with the next Political "wise idea" - the deck of cards comes crashing back down again.

As you can see, H 'n' H is not much of an optimist; just a realist! :suspect: Oh, and Happy Christmas/New Year to one and all! :ok:

[Misformonkey]

I Imagine it will be the traditional de-enrichment of post. Possibly more use of contractors to deliver short term projects or cheap Civil Servants who can bring in continuity to senior middle management posts (OF4).

[Hot 'n' High]

I Imagine it will be the traditional de-enrichment of post. Possibly more use of contractors to deliver short term projects or cheap Civil Servants who can bring in continuity to senior middle management posts (OF4).

Sadly, you may be right despite all the "new leaf, new SDR" hype. After all, a strategy that has failed time and time again to deliver any meaningful improvements is definitely going to be the lead runner for the next "cunning plan". After all, it's tried and tested and so is low-risk! :ok:

Maybe you and I will be proved wrong - but, don't know about you Misformonkey, I'm not holding my breath here. :ugh:

[weemonkey]

Foreign policy as well? Interesting.

Iran's about to buy a bunch of WMDs then..........allegedly.

Don't mess with the Persians.They slaughtered 1500 of their own people without blinking an eye two weeks ago...

Seriously we need to get off the distant war train and re align our defensive efforts much closer to home.

[AnglianAV8R]

Seriously we need to get off the distant war train and re align our defensive efforts much closer to home.

A voice of reason from the wilderness

[Easy Street]

Some people on Twitter are cooing over Shanghai's New Year drone display as an animal-friendly replacement for fireworks. Military analysts probably have other potential applications in mind. Seriously impressive...

(Didn't Dominic Cummings have rather a lot to say about this in one of his blogs? :))

YouTube link (Chinese state media)

[Asturias56]

See Cummiings is looking for "weirdo's and misfits with odd skills" to help him out

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50978329

The PM's senior adviser has called for changes to how government works, saying there are "profound problems" with how decisions are made. In a blog post (https://dominiccummings.com/), Dominic Cummings said the civil service lacked people with "deep expertise in specific fields". He said he wanted "weirdos and misfits with odd skills" to work in government.

But a civil servants' union said currently staff were recruited on merit and "because of what you can do, not what you believe". The union also said recruiting world-class experts is hampered by the "government's failure to pay a market rate".

In an unusual move, Mr Cummings also called for people keen to work in Downing Street to get in touch with him via a private Gmail address.

The former Vote Leave campaign director said he wanted to hear from "an unusual set of people with different skills and backgrounds", some to work as special advisers and "perhaps some as officials". He said No 10 was keen to recruit data scientists, software developers and economists to improve the performance of government. In his blog, Mr Cummings added: The aim of the new recruits is to improve performance but also make Mr Cummings himself "much less important — and within a year largely redundant"

A junior applicant will become his personal assistant for a year - a role which will involve "very interesting work and lots of uninteresting trivia that makes my life easier which you won't enjoy". The job will be so exhausting that "frankly it will be hard having a boy/girlfriend at all"
He also urged against applications from "confident public school bluffers" and added anyone who plays office politics "will be discovered and immediately binned"
He wants to hire "some true wild cards, artists, people who never went to university and fought their way out of an appalling hell hole"

Mr Cummings added that the Conservatives' 80-seat majority meant ministers would try to solve political problems without worrying about "short-term unpopularity". "The point of this government is to do things differently and better and this always looks messy," he wrote. "We do not care about trying to 'control the narrative' and all that New Labour junk."

He added that officials should be encouraged to stay in their roles for longer so that they are able to build up expertise in particular policy areas. "Shuffling some people who are expected to be general managers is a natural thing but it is clear Whitehall does this too much," he said. "There are not enough people with deep expertise in specific fields."

[Asturias56]

With things kicking in off in the ME expect every UK service to be out there promoting it's readiness to ... do whatever gets the biggest coverage.........

[Surplus]

See Cummiings is looking for "weirdo's and misfits with odd skills" to help him out

Dominic Cummings said the civil service lacked people with "deep expertise in specific fields".

He said he wanted "weirdos and misfits with odd skills" to work in government.."

I'm surprised that they need to advertise, I thought it was a prerequisite to be a weirdo and misfit to work in certain levels in government.

For too long 'people with "deep expertise in specific fields"' have been ignored, their views and informed opinions ridiculed. Looking on with interest as to how the politicians try to roll over and ingratiate themselves to a regime committed to the removal of our way of life.

[Asturias56]

"Times" lists HS2 and the QE's as possible targets for the root and branch review of legacy projects announced yesterday..................

[tucumseh]

If one applies Cummings’ words to Defence aviation, and in particular what most Servicemen tend (rightly) to have a good old moan about;

1. MoD’s quite deliberate policy to rid itself of ‘deep expertise’ is now 30 years old. A huge second tranche was taken in 1996. One cannot replace thousands of people overnight. It needs significant long-term investment and a major change in personnel policy.

2. ‘Deep expertise’ in the important domains is incompatible with recruiting 21 year old graduates who are allowed to skip the first five grades. Few know they ARE at the sixth grade, so don’t know what is NOT being done. Again, a long-term issue.

3. The ‘civil service union’ that is quoted is the First Division Association. It represents relatively few, all of whom will do their level best to block Mr Cummings (unless they’re shareholders in the agencies who provide ‘consultants’, PFI providers or the likes of SERCO). He needs to get the ‘premier division’ involved. (Well, they asked for that!)

But here’s an alternative suggestion. Just ask one question. Why were some major programmes delivered to time, cost and performance (and better), while simple ones failed miserably? Don’t ask the FDA; they won’t know, and wouldn’t tell you anyway.

I was asked by another country a few weeks ago to do a presentation on a related subject. There was no need. Just sent them a single, deleted Defence Standard; and if they wanted to use Powerpoint, a single slide saying ‘Implement it’. Same reply to the above question. Everything else falls out of it.

I’ve been retired for 16 years and have no axe to grind. I’ve seen both systems. Neither were perfect, but I know which one worked if the right people were in the right jobs. Most of those jobs and people no longer exist. For God’s sake hang on to what you’ve still got.

[Asturias56]

Tuc - even you would agree there has to be a balance between retaining certain ways of doing things and modernisation. There are many cases of organisations "staying with what they had" and it resulting in catastrophe (think the Crimean War), the reluctance of the UK Admiralty to adopt a convoy system in WW 1 or the complete inability of the system to handle expensive complex acquisition of the TSR2.

It's a matter of balance - but I think it often comes down to leadership in all spheres. A good leader and his team seem to be able to navigate the shoals that others come ashore on - hence the (odd) project delivered on time and on spec and the majority which are neither

[tucumseh]

Asturias56

Not sure what you mean by 'even you'.

If there is a Standard that, if implemented, leads to equipment delivered to time, cost and performance (with literally thousands of examples available); that explains the procedure for fixing almost every support problem; demonstrably would have prevented many accidents (XX177, ZG710, ZD576, XV230, etc); and in any case makes unnecessary 90% of recommendations in Board of Inquiry/Service Inquiry reports; then I simply suggest adhering to known good practice (and mandates).

I fully agree there is a need to 'modernise'. The various terms in the Standard need updating, and around six of the accompanying Specfications are now redundant, and probably need replacing to reflect newer capabilities. Even so, it remains perfectly clear.

A separate issue is why the Standard has officially been deleted, yet still forms the basis of, for example, the Infantry's flagship programme whose sole aim is to reduce casualties. That is where MoD won't go.

[jumpseater]

Bean countering, the E3 retirement accelerated with UK AWACS total withdrawal in the next few years, no overlap with replacements. Capability gap ‘filled’ by NATO/US and anyone else whilst waiting delivery of full fleet of E7 wedgetails.

Not saying it’s a good idea, but like the carrier capability gap of a few years back, there’s a precedent when the replacement has been identified/ordered.

[Asturias56]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51052124 UK nuclear weapons programme £1.3bn over budget

By Jonathan Beale Defence correspondent, BBC News

6 hours ago

The Ministry Of Defence's "poor management" of Britain's nuclear weapons programme has led to rising costs and lengthy delays, according to the government spending watchdog.

The National Audit Office looked at three security sites in England, known as the Defence Nuclear Estate. It found the infrastructure projects face delays of between one and six years, with costs increasing by £1.3bn.

The MoD said it would carefully look at the report's findings.

The projects, initially valued at £2.5bn, are being built to enhance or replace existing facilities at Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, where four new submarines are being built by BAE Systems to carry Trident missiles. The other sites are Raynesway near Derby, where Rolls Royce is developing nuclear reactors to power the submarines, and at Burghfield in Berkshire, where the Atomic Weapons Establishment are assembling nuclear warheads.

Nearly half of the £1.3bn in increased costs are due to construction starting too early and then having to be revised, the NAO found.

The watchdog acknowledged there have been unique challenges, including the need to comply with stricter security and safety regulations for the nuclear industry, such as the construction of buildings able to withstand seismic activity. But it said the MoD did not have the controls in place to overcome these barriers and prevent infrastructure designs from being over-specified and to ensure designs are "cost-effective".'Monopolistic suppliers'The NAO also criticised what it called "poor contracts", with the MoD taking all the risks and with the work being carried out by "monopolistic" suppliers. BAE Systems earned an extra £10m in management fees following cost increases. The company has no liability for costs and damages relating to non-performance. AWE also received additional fees when work was deferred. The report said it was disappointing to see the MoD making similar mistakes to ones it made 30 years ago. It says the department should not have allowed work to start too early and should have more control to agree to cost-effective designs. In not doing so, the MoD's early management of the programme has "not delivered value for money", said the NAO.

Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said the "MoD's failure to mitigate commercial and delivery risks early on has led to project delays and cost increases as well as impacting its wider work". The spending watchdog did acknowledge oversight had recently improved. But the criticisms will likely catch the attention of the prime minister's chief special adviser, Dominic Cummings, who wants to overhaul the way the MoD buys military equipment.

Mr Cummings, who has been a harsh critic of defence procurement, has already held talks with Defence Secretary Ben Wallace about ways of tackling waste. Mr Wallace recently admitted there was a shortfall in the department's budget. In a statement the Ministry of Defence said it was carefully examining the conclusions of the report but was committed to strengthening the management of its nuclear programme.

[tucumseh]

That article conflates so many issues it’s impossible to know where to begin, except that MoD’s ‘procurers’ play a very small part in it.

The thread is about SDR and ‘bids’.

I doubt if there’s more than a handful here who have done the former. (Only one has ever declared himself, on the old Mull of Kintyre thread, and not in this context).

Fewer still have done the latter, if only because in the aircraft world the Service HQs only employed about 4 or 5 to do it. (In pre-computer days, when their output was accurate).

These civilians prepared the ‘Shopping Lists’ and staffed ‘Board Submissions’ or ‘Business Cases’; the level of approval depending on cost. Only then did the procurers get involved to any degree.

A personal aspiration of these junior staff, who were seen as the ‘owners’ of Service kit, responsible for availability, reliability and maintainability, and accountable directly to an Admiral (for the RN), was to be promoted to the most junior project management grade. (Think about that, and compare with current DE&S). The advantage they then had is self-evident, explaining in part why the success of a project is often entirely dependant on the manager’s background.

Most of the errors in what people term ‘procurement’ occur long before procurers get a chance to apply reality, by which time the money is set in concrete. So, a project can be vastly ‘over cost’, but below a fair and reasonable price – which is what the project manager actually signs for. Plainly, an aim is to reconcile the two, but that is largely outwith his gift.

Bottom line. The mandated rules are there. Implement them. They help you (the Service HQ) to avoid the avoidable, leaving the project manager to manage the unavoidable. If you don’t, he hasn’t a chance.

[alfred_the_great]

About 20 years ago.

I imagine there are fair few people on here who’ve created submissions for SDSR and/or ABC options (I’ve done both). It really isn’t a rarified or civilian sport.

[tucumseh]

Agreed Alfred. The posts were gradually 'militarised' from 1990. I think you're RN - the last civilian postholder left DGA(N) HQ in 1993. He'd been on the radar/sonics desk. Today the nearest equivalent is Requirements Manager, but even then not very close. The Board Submissions I spoke of were the final ones - approval triggered the requisition to MoD(PE). The programme clock ran, and any change after that would force delay. The decision on what to ask for had been made by OR (but not quantified) - the author had to be able to articulate it in whatever detail the screening meetings required, and prepare alternatives, etc. There'd be lots of interim staffing that didn't constitute the formal Service requirement. The 1st level I mentioned was that which decides there's going to be a Navy, Army and Air Force, and what is expected of them. Out of that discussion flows the myriad of 'what if' questions us mere mortals have to answer, when you hope the right person is asked!

[Asturias56]

Britain must be prepared to fight wars without the United States as its key ally, the Defence Secretary has warned.

Ben Wallace said the prospect of the US stepping back from its international leadership role under Donald Trump "keeps me awake at night". It may force the UK to rethink its assumptions about defence, he added. His comments come as the UK prepares to carry out the "deepest review" of Britain's security, defence and foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.

"I worry if the United States withdraws from its leadership around the world," Mr Wallace told the Sunday Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/ben-wallace-interview-we-cant-rely-on-us-pmwcgv398). "That would be bad for the world and bad for us. We plan for the worst and hope for the best."

He said the defence review should be used to make the UK less dependent on the US in future conflicts. "Over the last year we've had the US pull out from Syria, the statement by Donald Trump on Iraq where he said Nato should take over and do more in the Middle East," Mr Wallace said. "The assumptions of 2010 that we were always going to be part of a US coalition is really just not where we are going to be. We are very dependent on American air cover and American intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. We need to diversify our assets."

Mr Wallace said last month there was a shortfall of funding in the Ministry of Defence's budget. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50864917)

[ORAC]

An aside which might be relevant. I am amazed at the percentage that the Voyager represents.

https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/status/1216747454537834496?s=21

[Mil-26Man]

An aside which might be relevant. I am amazed at the percentage that the Voyager represents.

https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/status/1216747454537834496?s=21

Not so surprising when you consider the regular Falklands runs they do back and forth. One of those return trips must be the same as a good few dozen Typhoon trips.

Though with only 9 aircraft in the fleet, yes it is a lot.

[vascodegama]

Except it is not the Voyager that does that run.

[heights good]

An aside which might be relevant. I am amazed at the percentage that the Voyager represents.

https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/status/1216747454537834496?s=21

is there a breakdown of the actual hours flown published any where?

[Onceapilot]

I am amazed at the percentage that the Voyager represents.


Not that surprising with a small Air Force that can rely heavily on the tankers for many capabilities.:D Ask the Navy.:}

OAP

[Mil-26Man]

Except it is not the Voyager that does that run.

Was when I last flew it

[vascodegama]

Mil man

The SA schedule is done by one of the CAR A330 ac operated by Air Tanker-last time I looked.

[Easy Street]

An aside which might be relevant. I am amazed at the percentage that the Voyager represents.

https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/status/1216747454537834496?s=21

Interesting chart but the percentage is wrong because he’s omitted Reaper and Tornado (the latter was still racking up the hours over the desert during FY18/19). Can someone who tweets please tweet at him to issue another version?

[Mil-26Man]

Mil man

The SA schedule is done by one of the CAR A330 ac operated by Air Tanker-last time I looked.

Yes, you're quite right. Not military hours.

[Asturias56]

I see a Space Force has gone on the list according to Defence News.

[Asturias56]

The latest news on Crowsnest problems isn't going to help the Navy's case.......................

[Asturias56]

Todays Times:-A former military chief has warned ministers against launching an “excruciating and debilitating” exercise in overhauling the way the Ministry of Defence spends billions of pounds on equipment.

General Lord Houghton of Richmond suggested that enhancing international alliances was a better strategy to boost Britain’s hard power, as the government prepares to launch a Whitehall review of foreign policy, defence and security this month. The transformation of military procurement is expected to form part of the review and is thought to be a personal priority for Dominic Cummings.......

Lord Houghton declared that the military budget was over stretched but expressed caution over and the restructuring of purchases and acquisitions programmes...

Savings could be achieved by deepening co-operation with partner nations , advising against "national military nostalgia" over maintaining sovereign assets clouding"rational judgement" about polling resources......

[Countdown begins]

Perhaps he was part of the problem, so of course he will object to his legacy being shamed and taken apart.
Nobody likes change, if it’s for the right reasons (overspending every time) then whilst it won’t be comfortable it will bring progress.

[Mil-26Man]

I'm thinking the Puma force is feeling a little vulnerable, hence the need to remind the good folks at the top of all the hard work they are currently doing - https://www.janes.com/article/93962/raf-notes-puma-milestone-with-third-of-hours-delivered-on-operations

[Asturias56]

Things starting to warm up - Lord West, proponent of all things nautical , popped up in the letter pages today asking why if Houghton thought he last 2 defence reviews were so bad he hadn't done more about it as he was in charge at the time......................................

[VinRouge]

Things starting to warm up - Lord West, proponent of all things nautical , popped up in the letter pages today asking why if Houghton thought he last 2 defence reviews were so bad he hadn't done more about it as he was in charge at the time......................................

My prediction is the army’s armoured cavalry units and larger non-spearhead infantry units are going to take an absolute hammering. If it isn’t high tech or specialised, it’s going to go.

This nonsense of every army unit having its own barber, admin, cook and bottle washer needs to go for cost saving too. They can easily do all that as a non formed unit when they deploy. How many army support personnel for each bayonet carrier again? Unfortunately fat useless little ex army twerps like Mark Francois will probably block it.

[Asturias56]

bands ..... never understood why every unit has to have it's own musicians - stick a WIFI in a land rover and a couple of speakers and drive slowly in front or behind those marching................

[pr00ne]

The British Army has 22 bands. I think is has a lot more than 22 units...

[Davef68]

Express today - Army spin on 'leasing a carrier to the US'

[LincsFM]

I've looked in my crystal ball and I am predicting that we will be having a capability gap with the E-3's going early! They are struggling to get one in the air these days.

[Asturias56]

Can't see them flogging a carrier to the USN or USMC - it would be very non-standard... but maybe some sort of "wet lease"? Like using an RAF airfield.......

[Asturias56]

The British Army has 22 bands. I think is has a lot more than 22 units...


I'm sure Mr Cummings will be asking how many it NEEDS................... ;)

[Not_a_boffin]

Can't see them flogging a carrier to the USN or USMC - it would be very non-standard... but maybe some sort of "wet lease"? Like using an RAF airfield.......

Of course, the easier solution would be for the UK to provide a permanent carrier group in the NATO/Med area (ie Europeans providing for their own defence needs), thereby allowing the USN to rebalance between 2nd and 7th fleets. That group might host the odd USMC squadron from time to time to augment force levels, cater for other UK F35 force commitments.

But that wouldn't suit the conspiracy theorists.

[Asturias56]

set up a NATO Carrier force with a couple of "Fords" on the same basis as the AWACS buy.... now we're talking!!!

[pr00ne]

Notaboffin/Asturias56,

With one operational squadron with 9 jets, and the next squadron not due along for years, I don't think there is any way that the UK could set up a permanent anything anywhere with the Lightning.

[Not_a_boffin]

Notaboffin/Asturias56,

With one operational squadron with 9 jets, and the next squadron not due along for years, I don't think there is any way that the UK could set up a permanent anything anywhere with the Lightning.

Also, SoS response in the house yesterday : http://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-02-03/debates/A58C87A3-7F4B-475E-AF9D-439A22396A0C/TopicalQuestions

[pr00ne]

Didn't say when though did he? When is the 3rd operational sqn due to form, 2033?

[Asturias56]

I think it's 6-8 aircraft a year? Hardly Lord Beaverbrooke in charge is it..............

[Harley Quinn]

I think it's 6-8 aircraft a year? Hardly Lord Beaverbrooke in charge is it..............

Given the eye watering cost of the things what do you suggest should be put to one side to increase ability to pay for an 'Expansion Plan'?

[Asturias56]

well they're hiring a couple more Fisheries Protection cutters according to the Press today..................

[Onceapilot]

Given the eye watering cost of the things what do you suggest should be put to one side to increase ability to pay for an 'Expansion Plan'?

Oh, I don't know....£6B for two boats, oops sorry, carriers can't be a total waste of money?!

OAP

[mahogany bob]

Save billions - create ' A JOINT DEFENCE FORCE '

Don't worry it will NEVER happen !!!

[Jackonicko]

As a matter of fact, Trump has already hinted he will retaliate if they so much as dare strike another allied country again.
His restraint really is a sign of strength - a level of strength his predecessor didn't have. Iran should take that as a warning, and not as a cop out. Donald Trump doesn't make idle threats. Iran will call his bluff at their peril.

Hmmm. Or is he an unstable, unpredictable, posturing pufball who is prone to petulant outbursts of anger (which are then quickly forgotten) and who is not 'in command of his brief' and has little grasp of anything? I suspect that any restraint shown is forced on the great Tangoed Spaff Badger by senior advisers.

[jindabyne]

A tad OTT?

[Jackonicko]

....the UK was offered F-22 in the 90's (reliable source), but the cost was astronomical and unjustifiable given our commitment to Typhoon at the time. Besides, it's not as if we need it now we have the F-35, which is just as good, if not better.

Totally different aircraft with different roles. Does anyone think that F-35 is "just as good" as F-22 as an air defender? Or that the F-22 is in the same ballpark as F-35 for air-to-ground?

Simplistic and misleading b*llocks.

[Jackonicko]

A tad OTT?

Undeniably. But no more so than attempting to portray Mr Trump as being restrained, carefully calculating and statesmanlike. And probably a fair bit closer to the truth.

[Asturias56]

Must admit I can see the UK Govt changing the balance of the F-35 order to the F-35A - that way they can say they're still buying the same number of air-frames but not need extra funding............

[Not_a_boffin]

Must admit I can see the UK Govt changing the balance of the F-35 order to the F-35A - that way they can say they're still buying the same number of air-frames but not need extra funding............

Adding a probe to A-model might not come for free. Nor is the alternative of putting a boom on Voyager........and that's before you get to the ILS costs of supporting two different variants which are nowhere near as common as originally hoped.

[downsizer]

Adding a probe to A-model might not come for free. Nor is the alternative of putting a boom on Voyager........and that's before you get to the ILS costs of supporting two different variants which are nowhere near as common as originally hoped.

Have you got a commonality figure? Or are you just guessing?

[Not_a_boffin]

http://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/srpt255/CRPT-114srpt255.pdf

Nigh on four years old, admittedly. Relevant extract at bottom of page 280, citing 20-25% commonality (primarily in cockpits) across versions. For some reason I can't paste the exact section into this post.

[downsizer]

I am amazed it is so low.

I'm sure I've seen figures quoting higher.

[finningleyprince]

Russia currently is operating around 3 "Borey" SSBN + 1 Typhoon + 7 Deltas - the Deltas are between 30 & 40 years old.

They have 10 Akulas SSN's which are approx 30 years old plus 1 Yasen which is about 6 years old

Also some SSK's and , old Oscars etc

these are split across 3 oceans

It's still a meaningful force but it's about the same as the UK plus France put together - and they are in one ocean.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32087/admiral-warns-americas-east-coast-is-no-longer-a-safe-haven-thanks-to-russian-subs

Gets interesting doesn't it!

[Asturias56]

To quote Miss Rice-Davies "well he would say that .." etc

from the same article:-

"Lewis did not offer any specific details on the total number of Russian submarines the U.S. military believes are on patrol in the Atlantic at any given time compared to previous years. There has been significant debate about the exact scale (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22794/the-scope-not-the-scale-of-russian-and-chinese-naval-ops-in-the-atlantic-is-worrisome) of Russia's undersea activities, especially compared to peaks in the Soviet Navy's operations at the height of the Cold War, and whether the Kremlin has only been able to generate the additional deployments by pulling resources (http://www.hisutton.com/Russian_Submarine_Activity.html) from the Pacific region."


But this is nothing cp the "threats" that all sides will be preparing to tell the British Press & Public about when the day gets closer for the publication of the UK Review........

[Countdown begins]

To quote Miss Rice-Davies "well he would say that .." etc

from the same article:-

"Lewis did not offer any specific details on the total number of Russian submarines the U.S. military believes are on patrol in the Atlantic at any given time compared to previous years. There has been significant debate about the exact scale (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22794/the-scope-not-the-scale-of-russian-and-chinese-naval-ops-in-the-atlantic-is-worrisome) of Russia's undersea activities, especially compared to peaks in the Soviet Navy's operations at the height of the Cold War, and whether the Kremlin has only been able to generate the additional deployments by pulling resources (http://www.hisutton.com/Russian_Submarine_Activity.html) from the Pacific region."


But this is nothing cp the "threats" that all sides will be preparing to tell the British Press & Public about when the day gets closer for the publication of the UK Review........
I think you’ve missed the point of the article. You’ve discounted them as a militia of the sea, when it would seem they’re actually not.
Troll alert!! What will you be telling the Press? You seem a little too informed, and on here almost continuously, to just be a spotter.

[BVRAAM]

Totally different aircraft with different roles. Does anyone think that F-35 is "just as good" as F-22 as an air defender? Or that the F-22 is in the same ballpark as F-35 for air-to-ground?

Simplistic and misleading b*llocks.

Can I respectfully remind you that the F-22 was designed as a specialist air superiority fighter. It was given a limited air to ground capability to allow the Brass to present the case that they are making full use of their expensive assets.

Therefore, no, the F-35 cannot perform as well as the F-22 at 60,000' because it can't even get there, much less punch off an AMRAAM at said height at M2 and perform tactical manoeuvres (thanks to vectored thrust) that other fast jets simply cannot do.
In an era of finite budgets and multi-role fighters, the aircraft that can do the most with the least are "better" and more desirable than those that can't, which is exactly why Project CENTURION was applied to the Typhoon. The F-35 was designed to be very good at a lot of things, not to excel at one thing. Therefore it is absolutely better than the F-22 as an all-round platform.

My personal favourite FJs of all time, are the F-15C and Tornado F.3 - two specialist air defence aircraft, designed for very different areas of air defence. From a personal level I don't like multi-role, but it's not about personal preference, as much as it is the needs of a country verses the money they have to spend.

[jindabyne]

I don't like multi-role, but it's not about personal preference, as much as it is the needs of a country verses the money they have to spend.

Strange comment. Isn't multi role capability about more bangs for the buck? That aside, the technology works and is proven - so why not go there?

[flighthappens]

From a personal level I don't like multi-role, but it's not about personal preference, as much as it is the needs of a country verses the money they have to spend.

May we ask why, in all your experience, that you don’t like multi-role?

[BVRAAM]

Strange comment. Isn't multi role capability about more bangs for the buck? That aside, the technology works and is proven - so why not go there?

Please re-read my post.

[Buster15]

Can I respectfully remind you that the F-22 was designed as a specialist air superiority fighter. It was given a limited air to ground capability to allow the Brass to present the case that they are making full use of their expensive assets.

Therefore, no, the F-35 cannot perform as well as the F-22 at 60,000' because it can't even get there, much less punch off an AMRAAM at said height at M2 and perform tactical manoeuvres (thanks to vectored thrust) that other fast jets simply cannot do.
In an era of finite budgets and multi-role fighters, the aircraft that can do the most with the least are "better" and more desirable than those that can't, which is exactly why Project CENTURION was applied to the Typhoon. The F-35 was designed to be very good at a lot of things, not to excel at one thing. Therefore it is absolutely better than the F-22 as an all-round platform.

My personal favourite FJs of all time, are the F-15C and Tornado F.3 - two specialist air defence aircraft, designed for very different areas of air defence. From a personal level I don't like multi-role, but it's not about personal preference, as much as it is the needs of a country verses the money they have to spend.

Wow. Not very often you hear someone say that Tornado F3 was such a good aircraft.
It was and still often is criticised for not being able to things it was simply not designed to do.

I was involved with the engine programme and I do agree with you by the way.

[jindabyne]

Accepted BV :ok:

But as you accept that multi-role is more cost-effective and confers greater military flexibility, is your dislike simply cosmetic?

[Mil-26Man]

What chance some more P-8s?

https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1227142721669914624

[Asturias56]

Another Admiral banging on the Times today about the cost of HS2 and re the "small" cost of the Carriers

[Asturias56]

What chance some more P-8s?

https://twitter.com/GarethJennings3/status/1227142721669914624


That makes sense - 9 aircraft is unlikely to be enough - and you KNOW they'll be diverted to all sorts of other things maritime

[RAFEngO74to09]

That makes sense - 9 aircraft is unlikely to be enough - and you KNOW they'll be diverted to all sorts of other things maritime
See my detailed comments on the P-8A thread - from the top expert opinion available - on the number that would be nice to have.
#282 here: https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/599454-raf-poseidon-not-too-long-wait-15.html

[Asturias56]

Ministerial reshuffle today folks - lets see if there's another Defence Minister............... :(

[Davef68]

That makes sense - 9 aircraft is unlikely to be enough - and you KNOW they'll be diverted to all sorts of other things maritime

The initial number always had to be 9, just because that was the number of Nimrod MRA4s that they were prepared to accept. It would have been hard to convince the Treasury to fund more of an aircraft you were claiming was more capable than the one it was being procured instead of. The advantage of P-8 always was they COULD order more if they wanted to. There were never going to be more than 9 MRA4s

[Asturias56]

Todays "times says the process is "in turmoil" & "unravelling"

They're arguing over who sits on which committees and panels and he timetable. "Consternation about the number of has-beens involved" "the prevailing view in No 10 is that the UK has slipped into being an "ambient power""

Whatever that is.....................

[Lyneham Lad]

Article mentioned in #238.

Boris Johnson’s foreign policy, defence and security review in turmoil, say insiders (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/57f23c94-54e5-11ea-a869-24971f770bf3?shareToken=9a4fa8ef6840a885b67a920d9416030e)

[finningleyprince]

I consider the MOD budget a little like an exceptionally poorly run project to put a decent AV suite in my living room.

I have a budget, but have several variables to consider- the screen, the media player, the discs and the electric bill (the overhead). So if I buy the 8k beauty, with many of all the best bells and whistles, you'd expect me to compromise on the other two, as the electricity is a fixed overhead? I need both the player and the discs for the first bit to actually work- but I bought the expensive 8k beauty, so it needs a fantastic feed for it to show me it's all. Now my budget is blown, but the first two are pretty pointless without the discs. I can go with less bells and whistles here on the media player, and so I now have a minuscule budget for the discs released 5 years ago; I now can't pay the electric bill and the partner isn't able to watch Love Island. I didn't do very well, did I?

Read across to spanking new kit, some of which is for showmanship, then the driver for the kit that is spanking, then the support contract; last and least to consider is the people. For any western company having to cancel courses, travel, development or team building in months 11 and 12 of any financial year is poor housekeeping.
Cummings is hated, but driven and apparently quite ruthless; he will have a field day in the crappy living room he and his team are going to look in. If he asks the right questions then it will be better than watching Top Gun 2.

Do they still sell Matsui?

[Asturias56]

"Cummings is hated, but driven and apparently quite ruthless; he will have a field day in the crappy living room he and his team are going to look in."

Indeed - I'd love to be a fly on the wall when he starts asking questions - no doubt a load of people are currently sweating desperately trying to avoid an appearance in the Torture Chamber................

[weemonkey]

Article mentioned in #238.

Boris Johnson’s foreign policy, defence and security review in turmoil, say insiders (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/57f23c94-54e5-11ea-a869-24971f770bf3?shareToken=9a4fa8ef6840a885b67a920d9416030e)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-defence-review-will-be-a-failure-if-johnson-ignores-experts-jb99dw5bb


Hmm.

Last time I met George Robinson he was, stumbling and incoherent and at a RAF Leuchars open day, trying to find his way to the Legion and B of B veterans area, I was "somewhat taken aback" to see the defence secretary in such a state at 1400 ish so he didn't get a salute either.

Tut tut naughty me.

[alfred_the_great]

"Cummings is hated, but driven and apparently quite ruthless; he will have a field day in the crappy living room he and his team are going to look in."

Indeed - I'd love to be a fly on the wall when he starts asking questions - no doubt a load of people are currently sweating desperately trying to avoid an appearance in the Torture Chamber................

That’s all well and fine.

The key to making anything happen in Defence is actually making sure it happens. Unless Cummings is in post for 5+ years, and maintains a laser like focus on implementing whatever is decided, the MoD will just slow-roll stuff it doesn’t like and ignore deadlines...

[Countdown begins]

That’s all well and fine.

The key to making anything happen in Defence is actually making sure it happens. Unless Cummings is in post for 5+ years, and maintains a laser like focus on implementing whatever is decided, the MoD will just slow-roll stuff it doesn’t like and ignore deadlines...
Cummings has an idiot detector, which is rather likely to flatten its battery, and quickly. The chances are he’s a character that won’t put up with nonsense!

[Asturias56]

Today's paper says there will be a full review of Foreign Policy and commitments ahead of the review - The Defence review results are now penciled in for "autumn 2020". The "most sweeping review of defence & security since the end of the Cold War"

Also floated are an increase in overall budget to address some of the "black holes", a cut in the size of the army (as they can't recruit or retain anywhere near their current planned strength), especially armour, Cummings to be in charge of the overall reviews....

[VinRouge]

My prediction is the army’s armoured cavalry units and larger non-spearhead infantry units are going to take an absolute hammering. If it isn’t high tech or specialised, it’s going to go.

This nonsense of every army unit having its own barber, admin, cook and bottle washer needs to go for cost saving too. They can easily do all that as a non formed unit when they deploy. How many army support personnel for each bayonet carrier again? Unfortunately fat useless little ex army twerps like Mark Francois will probably block it.

I am Dominic Cummings and I claim my 10 pounds...Mass has a quality of its own..... until it doesnt.

They are going to use the Defence Budget to directly support UK High Tech industrial development and research, a la DARPA. So, if I were a betting man, firms focused on Cyber, space, unmanned systems (across the spectrum) and communications systems are going to do very well out of this. And it wont be BWOS that benefits, it will be small, niche companies imho.

Time to get rid of dead wood and focus where we can have the biggest leverage globally for the smallest buck. The days of gunboat diplomacy for the UK are over.

[Davef68]

I'm still uneasy at having someone with Cumming's Russian connections in such an important position

[Asturias56]

"Cummings, the divisive senior adviser (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/11/dominic-cummings-accused-of-conflict-of-interest-over-nhs-fund) to the prime minister, Boris Johnson, spent three years in Russia from 1994 to 1997 after he graduated from Oxford University with a first in ancient and modern history"

Ah yes - the start of the Wild West years in Russian economic banditry... - t me that shows he was a damn sight cleverer than most - the City of London only started to turn up big time around the end of the decade...... Very much doubt that makes him a security risk

[ORAC]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/27/watchdog-rebukes-mod-over-3bn-military-budget-overspend

British military could be left depleted after £13bn shortfall

[VinRouge]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/27/watchdog-rebukes-mod-over-3bn-military-budget-overspend

British military could be left depleted after £13bn shortfall

Time the strategic Deterrent was extricated from the Def budget and given to the FCO.

A lot of the current budgetary issues have been caused by sharp accounting by Treasury (RAB anyone?!) and the inclusion of items that MoD have little control of. Trident for example.

[Jackonicko]

Realistically, should we be looking to a more economic deterrent?

One that doesn't rely on submarines that and costs £46Bn....

Do we need to penetrate Moscow's ABM defences?

How much to purchase ASMP and put a UK warhead on it?

[Asturias56]

If you ask BAe £ 46Bn........................

[Jumping_Jack]

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-equipment-plan-2019-to-2029/

Released yesterday.....

Report conclusions

For the third successive year, the Equipment Plan remains unaffordable. The Department’s central estimate of equipment procurement and support costs is lower than last year, but this reflects a restatement of the affordability gap rather than actions to address the funding shortfalls. The Department has still not taken the necessary decisions to establish an affordable long-term investment programme to develop future military capabilities. It has responded to immediate funding pressures by strengthening its management of annual budgets and establishing controls on future expenditure on equipment and support projects. It is also seeking to develop a more realistic assessment of affordability but has not yet addressed inconsistencies in the cost forecasts which support it.

However, the Department has become locked into a cycle of managing its annual budgets to address urgent affordability pressures at the expense of longer-term strategic planning, and is introducing new commitments without fully understanding the impact on the affordability of the Plan. It is not, therefore, using the Equipment Plan as a long‑term financial management tool, as it was originally designed to be. The Department’s continued short-term decision-making is now leading to higher costs and reduced capabilities. There is evidence that these problems are growing and increasingly affecting the Armed Forces’ ability to maintain and enhance their capabilities. As a result, there are increasing risks to value for money from the Department’s management of the Equipment Plan.

The Department’s affordability assessment is also based on the assumption that Air Command and Joint Forces Command will find efficiencies equivalent to all known potential efficiencies, and then find a further £1.3 billion of efficiencies.10 Neither these TLBs nor Head Office could provide sufficient evidence to justify this confidence in their ability to reduce costs.

[VinRouge]

http://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-equipment-plan-2019-to-2029/

Released yesterday.....


Smacks that either the Military Tasks and Defence Planning Assumptions need reducing (political, not a military call) from its established requirement, or the budget needs increasing.

Throwing mud at MoD and the Armed Forces for expecting 5 course Michelle Roux with a decent appertif whilst paying for a McDonalds value meal isnt exactly realistic.

Either way, the army are F*cked. No one will commit to a large scale military deployment as per HERRICK/TELIC, there is no political will. That means Land will be sucking from the rearmost nipple for the forseeable.

[Asturias56]

"expecting 5 course Michelle Roux with a decent appertif whilst paying for a McDonalds value meal isnt exactly realistic"

Expecting politicians to be realistic is REAL fantasy. Especially the Tories who are weaned on Imperial valour, Winston , Maggie, the Great Duke etc etc. However as you say as long as they don't do something stupid like cut (rather than gut) a series of famous fighting units (SAS, Marines, Paras, Guards....) they can trim quite a bit. The RTR just don't have the public resonance that will get the public annoyed or worried

​​​​​​​

[Asturias56]

Apparently someone has had the bright idea that with "Argos" reaching the end of her life in 2024 a new "hospital" ship can be funded by raiding the International Development budget.

Sounds like Mr Cummings really is getting to shake-up thinking in the dusty ,corridors of power......

[Lyneham Lad]

Apparently someone has had the bright idea that with "Argos" reaching the end of her life in 2024 a new "hospital" ship can be funded by raiding the International Development budget.

Sounds like Mr Cummings really is getting to shake-up thinking in the dusty ,corridors of power......

Presumably you are referring to this article in The Times today. (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-navy-hospital-ship-could-be-paid-for-using-overseas-aid-budget-9knv3prkd)

[Asturias56]

Indeed - tho they point out it couldn't be labelled as a "hospital Ship" without significantly impacting on any real military use

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/andrewturnerraf/status/1235247276320313352?s=21

https://youtu.be/Y5YW4qKOAVM