New Defence Review, higher or lower?

[Finningley Boy]

Dear all,

You have all likely read in your Daily Paper today that the PM is going to order a Defence Review particularly driven by the current climate between the West and Russia/China. What do you reckon will be the likely outcome? A move toward expansion, by any small degree, and modernization? Or are you so used to the usual damp squib results of all the reviews since the early 90s you can't bring yourself to expect any different? Answers on a post on this thread!

FB

[Asturias56]

It will be higher but then when the financial crunch comes in a year or so expect massive cancellations or delays

[Finningley Boy]

It will be higher but then when the financial crunch comes in a year or so expect massive cancellations or delays
Hmmm, I think you could be right young man, I'm impressed with your grasp of the political promise cycle and our nation's financial prospects, we've done it before. Apparently, also in the news this morning, Vlad the Mad has issued a nuclear strike warning which everyone appears to be taking quite seriously.

FB

[Bob Viking]

I can only speak for my limited sphere and I know it’s not the party line (according to every VSO money is not the answer) but unless they increase the pay (or dramatically improve infrastructure and the overall package) there will be more aircraft than pilots.

BV

[melmothtw]

Dear all,

You have all likely read in your Daily Paper today that the PM is going to order a Defence Review particularly driven by the current climate between the West and Russia/China. What do you reckon will be the likely outcome? A move toward expansion, by any small degree, and modernization? Or are you so used to the usual damp squib results of all the reviews since the early 90s you can't bring yourself to expect any different? Answers on a post on this thread!

FB

They can pretty much include whatever they like, as by the the time the next review comes out in 2025ish nothing in this one will matter. Seriously, when was the last time a review actually came to fruition?

[Ninthace]

It will be too little and too late. If push comes to shove we will have to go with what we have now, having suffered years of the Treasury taking the same "Peace Dividend" over and over again on the assumption there was never going to be another conflict.

I still smart from the time I was told to demilitarise my department as much as possible to save money without "any loss of output". When I challenged the order, I was told by my immediate superior, an Air Rank, there was never going to be another war and to get on with it. Six months later, in my next posting, I was required to submit names for personnel to be sent to Afghanistan, again "with no loss of output".

[Martin the Martian]

A new defence review? Hmm, as Brenda from Bristol might put it, "Not another one?!"

I suspect it will be the loss of certain capabilities and equipment and a reduction in personnel, dressed up with a positive spin of realignment and rationalisation and other big words.

[oldmansquipper]

Some bean counter of a politician will smugly spout spindrivel about “capability being maintained with a much lower budget, as there has been an ‘increase in natural wastage’ recently”. After all, many of our pre existing assets will have ‘gone east’ over the previous 6 months. There will be an increase in the D&I budget of course.

Sort of a ‘no-peace dividend’ then?

[Sleeve Wing]

Perhaps we saw virtually the whole of our armed forces on duty on Monday, padded out of course with Police and Scout contingents.
They did put on a fine, memorable show though.........

[Easy Street]

If they have any sense they'll spend it all on properly supporting what they already have. More uniformed people, more pay for those people, more fuel and training hours for the aircraft, more weapons for the stockpiles, more aircraft to replace (not add to) the ones being flown way beyond assumed rates. In other words, make a decisive break with the fetishisation of 'best practices' around outsourcing and supply chain modernisation, both of which have had their weaknesses exposed in industry these past few years and were always of doubtful applicability to the armed forces.

Trouble is, none of that looks like an increase in capability for the money. There's no prizes for delivering sustainability. A couple of brand new, unsupported aircraft under a sham squadron numberplate it is, then ...

[Asturias56]

They have to be big enough to paint a large Union flag on them tho'

[bobward]

How about exchange tours for senior ranks with those in Ukraine? From the way they've handled things to date, they could teach our senior rankers a thing or two about getting things done.

[unmanned_droid]

The UK has trained plenty of the Ukraine structure.

The difference there is 1. They're being invaded so they have an extreme and focussed purpose, 2. They get almost whatever they want for free (at point of sale) from NATO and other friends, 3. They had a bigger pile of (admittedly old and out of date stuff) to begin the fight with.

The downfall of the UK has been engineered over the past 35 years or so, it's not about to be turned around overnight.

I'd quite like to see a reasonable and believable energy security policy that puts generation on this island as the main priority, before taking a small part in the next cold war or pacific adventure.

[Frostchamber]

Well, if defence spending is set to rise over the next few years to 3% of GDP (which is the official position as of now, even if folk are sceptical as to whether it'll actually happen) then it makes sense to have a clear view on how best to spend it, without funding greater inefficiencies, and having regard to the current threat environment. Then again, many argue that the last ISDR's findings remain valid, Ukraine notwithstanding. Either way, any big windfall demands sound advice and careful thought, as opposed to a "spend spend Viv" response. So maybe a mix of a few immediate enhancements to address critical gaps, coupled with a longer term plan?

[melmothtw]

Well, if defence spending is set to rise over the next few years to 3% of GDP (which is the official position as of now, even if folk are sceptical as to whether it'll actually happen) then it makes sense to have a clear view on how best to spend it, without funding greater inefficiencies, and having regard to the current threat environment. Then again, many argue that the last ISDR's findings remain valid, Ukraine notwithstanding. Either way, any big windfall demands sound advice and careful thought, as opposed to a "spend spend Viv" response. So maybe a mix of a few immediate enhancements to address critical gaps, coupled with a longer term plan?

With GDP having fallen sharply since the Brexit vote and further still following Covid, and only now beginning to rise slightly ahead of projected stagnation in 2023 (PWC's prognosis, not mine), I wouldn't count on an increase in % of GDP spending actually resulting in more money to spend.

[Davef68]

Re-instatement of the two cancelled E-7s wouod be nice

[Herod]

More boots on the ground/runway/deck would be nice. You can get a lot of well-equipped squaddies for the cost of an F35.

[[email protected]]

Just changing the ethos of getting rid of the underspend on a budget in Feb/Mar because 'If we don't spend it, we won't get it next year' would be nice - plenty of money wasted doing just that across the board.

[MPN11]

Just changing the ethos of getting rid of the underspend on a budget in Feb/Mar because 'If we don't spend it, we won't get it next year' would be nice - plenty of money wasted doing just that across the board.
Been there, seen that. The LTC concept was sound in parts, but open to money just falling through the cracks. If you had a low hline item in the right Budget at year-end it was open season for waste!

[Frostchamber]

With GDP having fallen sharply since the Brexit vote and further still following Covid, and only now beginning to rise slightly ahead of projected stagnation in 2023 (PWC's prognosis, not mine), I wouldn't count on an increase in % of GDP spending actually resulting in more money to spend.

I'm no mathematician so happy to be corrected, but I think GDP would need to collapse by something like 25% in order for 3% of GDP not to represent a real increase in defence spending over 2.2%. By comparison, the 2008 financial crisis resulted in a GDP reduction of a little over 6%. Of course any GDP reduction would trim the size of the spending increase, but if my rusty o-level maths is anywhere near correct we'd be approaching Mad Max territory before it wiped it out completely.

[tucumseh]

Been there, seen that. The LTC concept was sound in parts, but open to money just falling through the cracks. If you had a low hline item in the right Budget at year-end it was open season for waste!

One of the best things about the LTC process was it required the Services to (a) know what they had, and (b) quantify what they wanted.

Lacking the first, one can't answer key Requirement Scrutiny questions, which will at best cause significant delay.

Lacking the second, one cannot cost the 'requirement', which tends to lead to a lack of funding, which is later misrepresented as a 'cost overrun' when actually the cost is fair and reasonable.



As an aside, the Defence Committee issued an interesting report yesterday recommending a return (although it didn't say 'return') to the system whereby one could take a contractor's past performance into account when considering a bid. (Now I wonder where they read that suggestion? Are they finally having a look at successful programmes?) When that authority was withdrawn (at roughly the same time as the demise of the LTC), it introduced enormous risks, which manifested immediately. Successful mitigation relied almost entirely on the programme manager having prior experience of the above Service HQ posts within the LTC process, or having managed programmes across every (e.g.) aircraft domain. Both were very rare. All these things are linked.

If the recommendation is accepted, the first logical step is to resurrect and reissue the hitherto mandatory procedures for doing this, which set out who the authority was vested in. The Services and DSA/MAA won't do this, as the authority is too low down the food chain. We can't have plebs doing important stuff! Another difficulty being (as a matter of policy) lack of SQEP. Perhaps more to the point, it would mean DSA/MAA having to rewrite many of the important (but incorrect) parts of the new Regulatory Set. And they, too, having SQEP.

It's all about people. Without the right people, implementing the correct regulations, there can be no solid foundations.

[AnglianAV8R]

It will be higher but then when the financial crunch comes in a year or so expect massive cancellations or delays

I think you need to shorten that timescale. Possibly weeks, not months.

[melmothtw]

I'm no mathematician so happy to be corrected, but I think GDP would need to collapse by something like 25% in order for 3% of GDP not to represent a real increase in defence spending over 2.2%. By comparison, the 2008 financial crisis resulted in a GDP reduction of a little over 6%. Of course any GDP reduction would trim the size of the spending increase, but if my rusty o-level maths is anywhere near correct we'd be approaching Mad Max territory before it wiped it out completely.

Arguably, the bigger issue than GDP is the fall in the pound against the US dollar. THAT is really going to hurt our procurement power, given so much of it is pegged to the dollar.

[MPN11]

Given the vast amounts of taxation income the new Chancellor has just given away, I would say "Lower" ... unless the Magic Money Tree in the garden of No. 11 is in fruit again.

[Baldeep Inminj]

Given the vast amounts of taxation income the new Chancellor has just given away, I would say "Lower" ... unless the Magic Money Tree in the garden of No. 11 is in fruit again.

Agreed! The tories have just destroyed any chances of winning the next election and made a Labour Government an absolute certainty. They have spat in the face of struggling people and tanked the economy in 1 day. Well done Liz.

How do Labour government’s tend to treat the Forces? (Rhetorical question). Time to get used to a bare cupboard.

[Asturias56]

I can't see any extra money being available for defence - it 's not even mentioned in all the hoo-hah over the new budget. Lower exchange rate, higher inflation, lower taxes = major defence review in 2025 under a Labour Govt. Voters have this odd habit of remembering "bonus for bankers" for a very long time

[melmothtw]

How do Labour government’s tend to treat the Forces? (Rhetorical question). Time to get used to a bare cupboard.

No worse than the Tories. It wasn't Labour that scrapped Ark Royal and the Harriers, not to mention Nimrod MRA4 etc.

Seriously, if you look at which party actually cuts the armed forces you'd maybe be surprised.

[petit plateau]

I'm no mathematician so happy to be corrected, but I think GDP would need to collapse by something like 25% in order for 3% of GDP not to represent a real increase in defence spending over 2.2%. By comparison, the 2008 financial crisis resulted in a GDP reduction of a little over 6%. Of course any GDP reduction would trim the size of the spending increase, but if my rusty o-level maths is anywhere near correct we'd be approaching Mad Max territory before it wiped it out completely.

A lot of defence equipment is essentially priced in US dollars, much as oil and most major commodities are. In May 2015 when the Brexit referendum became law the GBP/USD rate was approx 1.55. It is now (23-Sep-2022) only 1.10. That is 0.45/1.55 = 29% reduction on what it was. This exceeds 25%, and to quote your own words is therefore a "max Max outcome" in the UK's ability to fund stuff priced in USD. The UK is reaping what Brexit voters have sown, and it is likely to get far worse before - if ever - it gets better. The defence budget implications ought to be obvious. At the same time the UK has seriously $%%^-off all the local partner nations with whom it has shared costs for the last 70-years, and is instead shopping around (quite successfully) for new partners to foot the bill in Australia and Japan (well at least initial indications are promising).

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/history/GBP-USD-2015

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/23/kwarteng-accused-of-reckless-mini-budget-for-the-rich-as-pound-crashes

[Asturias56]

"Seriously, if you look at which party actually cuts the armed forces you'd maybe be surprised."

people forget it was the Labour party that started the atomic weapons programme, took us into Korea and built Chevaline on the quiet

[Marly Lite]

A lot of defence equipment is essentially priced in US dollars, much as oil and most major commodities are. In May 2015 when the Brexit referendum became law the GBP/USD rate was approx 1.55. It is now (23-Sep-2022) only 1.10. That is 0.45/1.55 = 29% reduction on what it was. This exceeds 25%, and to quote your own words is therefore a "max Max outcome" in the UK's ability to fund stuff priced in USD. The UK is reaping what Brexit voters have sown, and it is likely to get far worse before - if ever - it gets better. The defence budget implications ought to be obvious. At the same time the UK has seriously $%%^-off all the local partner nations with whom it has shared costs for the last 70-years, and is instead shopping around (quite successfully) for new partners to foot the bill in Australia and Japan (well at least initial indications are promising).

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/history/GBP-USD-2015

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/23/kwarteng-accused-of-reckless-mini-budget-for-the-rich-as-pound-crashes

The exchange rate has little to do with Brexit, pp, it has to do with spending versus production, and the fact the usd is the reserve currency.

so please amend your europhillic drivel.

[melmothtw]

The exchange rate has little to do with Brexit, pp, it has to do with spending versus production, and the fact the usd is the reserve currency.

so please amend your europhillic drivel.

The pound tanked against the dollar after Brexit, and its just getting worse. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-22/pound-slump-this-year-has-surpassed-2016-brexit-vote-hit-chart

[Marly Lite]

The pound tanked against the dollar after Brexit, and its just getting worse. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-22/pound-slump-this-year-has-surpassed-2016-brexit-vote-hit-chart
The pound may have tanked after Brexit. All market based trading incurs emotional responses. But the fundamentals are the same, spend more than you earn = currency debasement.

if you like a little research, look at a chart of the euro v the usd. You’ll soon learn Brexit is irrelevant.

[petit plateau]

The pound may have tanked after Brexit. All market based trading incurs emotional responses. But the fundamentals are the same, spend more than you earn = currency debasement.

if you like a little research, look at a chart of the euro v the usd. You’ll soon learn Brexit is irrelevant.

After 7-years and the change of 4-prime-ministers it would seem the markets disagree with you, hence 29% reduction in the value of sterling vs USD. I note the Cons were in the driving seat the whole time, so it surely was not a change of party that did the deed. Brexit seems increasingly culpable for the trainwreck that is the UK over that period.

Anybody managing the defence budget in that time, or the one to come, will be under no illusions as to the consequences.

Anybody denying these facts is obviously feeling rather uncomfortable that the penny is dropping out there in voterland.

(For completeness GBP/EUR was 1.40 in May 2015, now 1.13 as of 23-Sep-2022. That is 0.27/1.40 = 19% reduction in GBP vs the EUR in the same time the GBP declined 29% against USD. The direction of travel is pretty clear.)

[SamYeager]

Please take any further discussion of Brexit to Jet Blast. :*

[melmothtw]

Please take any further discussion of Brexit to Jet Blast. :*

Sadly Sam, Brexit will play a large part in the next defence review, which is the subject of this thread. We all wish it wasn't so.

[Asturias56]

I'm no fan of Brexit but I really don't think it has impacted the defence budget. We've all remarked for years how amazing it is that Defence never gets a mention in normal politics and especially at budget time. What has hurt UK defence is an overall lack of cash and some awful examples of managing projects

[WildRover]

Hopefully, the F35 order will be honoured and sped up. Maybe an increase in Typhoon numbers and another first line aerodrome opened. To have only three main operating bases, Lossie, Marham and Conningsby is a disgrace and surely limits capability. Cottesmore could be reopened amongst others.

[Frostchamber]

Re Labour, it was notable that post Ukraine invasion they were pushing HMG to up defence spending and emphasised that any increase would be supported by them - indeed they criticised the govt for not coming forward with an increase this year. Of course words are cheap when you're in opposition, but I'd agree with others that it's not simply a case of "Tories good, Labour bad" when it comes to defence spending. The Cameron administration was particularly bad.

[Brian 48nav]

I hate all the political rubbish that is spouted in the Military Aviation section BUT for all you know-alls I think you'll find that the £ was almost at parity with the US Dollar in the early eighties( 1980s ). Way way before Brexit.

[Bob Viking]

And the last time I went to France before Brexit (2011) I got €1.06 to the £.

BV

[melmothtw]

I hate all the political rubbish that is spouted in the Military Aviation section BUT for all you know-alls I think you'll find that the £ was almost at parity with the US Dollar in the early eighties( 1980s ). Way way before Brexit.

To bring that point back to military aviation, in the early 1980s the UK defence budget was not so nearly so slaved to the US dollar as it is today, and will be for the coming years as we continue to buy F-35s, AH-64s, E-7s, Protectors, more P-8s maybe, etc....

[Biggus]

To bring that point back to military aviation, in the early 1980s the UK defence budget was not so nearly so slaved to the US dollar as it is today, and will be for the coming years as we continue to buy F-35s, AH-64s, E-7s, Protectors, more P-8s maybe, etc....

Let's try and add some perspective to this. I've got these figures through a very quick search on my phone, so they might not be totally accurate, or both from the same financial year, but the principle is sound - and no doubt someone will correct me (hopefully politely) on the numbers.

Defence Budget £48 Bn. Amount spent on procurement £12 Bn.

So it would appear that only about a quarter of the Defence Budget is spent on procurement - and not all of that is American kit.

So, if we go for a period of expansion. Recruiting and training more soldiers, sailors and airman, and then paying them, the cost of that is going to be funded in pounds! Maintenance of current facilities in the UK,and possible expansion, pounds again. Warships built in UK shipyards, pounds. Training more pilots - pounds.

Yes, much of the high tech kit we buy these days is American, so the exchange rate WILL matter. But it won't impact all of the Defence Budget, and orders might be stretched over a longer period to compensate for the higher unit costs.

Best I duck back out of this now.....

[petit plateau]

And the last time I went to France before Brexit (2011) I got €1.06 to the £.

BV

Let's try and add some perspective to this. I've got these figures through a very quick search on my phone, so they might not be totally accurate, or both from the same financial year, but the principle is sound - and no doubt someone will correct me (hopefully politely) on the numbers.

Defence Budget £48 Bn. Amount spent on procurement £12 Bn.

So it would appear that only about a quarter of the Defence Budget is spent on procurement - and not all of that is American kit.

So, if we go for a period of expansion. Recruiting and training more soldiers, sailors and airman, and then paying them, the cost of that is going to be funded in pounds! Maintenance of current facilities in the UK,and possible expansion, pounds again. Warships built in UK shipyards, pounds. Training more pilots - pounds.

Yes, much of the high tech kit we buy these days is American, so the exchange rate WILL matter. But it won't impact all of the Defence Budget, and orders might be stretched over a longer period to compensate for the higher unit costs.

Best I duck back out of this now.....

In 2011 the USD/GBP rate was approx 1.62 USD per GBP (not knowing the month of your trip I cannot be more precise). So a 32% decrease in th eexchange rate in that time, of which 29% of th edecline was in the last 7-years since the Brexit referendum was announced.

https://www.exchangerates.org.uk/GBP-USD-spot-exchange-rates-history-2011.html

The point being that as anybidy doing defenc economics will know, the UK is in a hole and it is a long run trend that is not getting better.

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-spot-exchange-rates/gbp/GBP-to-USD

The self inflicted wound of Brexit has made things even worse in the last several years, i.e. on top of all the other woes that come from running a persistent current account deficit and relying on the charity of others. This has very obvious real-world consequences to defence, especially when lusting after the shiny shiny such as P8, E7, and much of the embedded systems in pretty much everything.. It also has consequences for operational costs (oil, fuel, lubes are all priced in USD - remember the days of slow steaming ?), food and munitions (all predominantly composed of USD costs). Then given that a large chunk of the defence budget is personnel costs (present & past) and the ever-lower GBP results in imported inflation, these too become more costly.

Dreaming of expansion is all very good. Paying for it on this trajectory is something else entirely.

[Asturias56]

"Warships built in UK shipyards,"

Which yards? there are only a couple left - and the most important one at Barrow is full for the foreseeable future

[Ninthace]

"Warships built in UK shipyards,"

Which yards? there are only a couple left - and the most important one at Barrow is full for the foreseeable future
There is a shipyard at Appledore that could build warships of a size we can afford and is short of work.

[Asturias56]

I have some sympathy for the idea that we could build a lot more Patrol type vessels - which is what we need (amongst other types) but then you have to have the on-going cash to maintain - something that seems to pass the politicians by

[Bengo]

I have some sympathy for the idea that we could build a lot more Patrol type vessels - which is what we need (amongst other types) but then you have to have the on-going cash to maintain - something that seems to pass the politicians by

It is not just the maintenance money. A large part of through-life cost of a warship is the cost of the ship's company. Not just the costs of sailors on board today either, but the pipeline of replacements and their pensions all have to be funded. That is one reason why SSN(R) and the QE pair are so automated, reducing the complement as much as practicable.

N

[Not_a_boffin]

I have some sympathy for the idea that we could build a lot more Patrol type vessels - which is what we need (amongst other types) but then you have to have the on-going cash to maintain - something that seems to pass the politicians by

What - precisely - do we need them to patrol and against what threat?

[pr00ne]

Dear all,

You have all likely read in your Daily Paper today that the PM is going to order a Defence Review particularly driven by the current climate between the West and Russia/China. What do you reckon will be the likely outcome? A move toward expansion, by any small degree, and modernization? Or are you so used to the usual damp squib results of all the reviews since the early 90s you can't bring yourself to expect any different? Answers on a post on this thread!

FB

Finningley Boy,

With the gigantic mess that Truss and her Chancellor are making of the UK economy, you will be lucky if the size of the reduction in defence
spending that this incompetent shower will announce along with all other public sector and Whitehall cuts on Nov 23rd is less than 5%.
Remember, all that Truss has promised on Defence spending is that by 2030 it will be 3% of GDP.
Truss will be gone WAY before 2030!
Letters of no confidence are already being submitted to the 1922 Committee.

And, if by some miracle she does survive till May 2024, the electorate will show her the door.

[Bob Viking]

We are constantly being told that we need more diversity in the higher echelons of power. Well we have managed that in fine style by pushing all those dastardly white males out of the corridors of power. Yet now we seem to be suggesting that this ethnically and gender diverse cabinet has made a bit of a cock up with the nations finances. I was led to believe that greater diversity brings with it greater achievements. Am I allowed to criticise them or am I then a racist/misogynist/bigot?

BV

[Asturias56]

"What - precisely - do we need them to patrol and against what threat?"

Well there's Illegal immigration, fishing, disaster relief and drugs enforcement and it might be nice to have a force big enough that we don't have to use RFA's and tankers to handle such issues .

[Toadstool]

We are constantly being told that we need more diversity in the higher echelons of power. Well we have managed that in fine style by pushing all those dastardly white males out of the corridors of power. Yet now we seem to be suggesting that this ethnically and gender diverse cabinet has made a bit of a cock up with the nations finances. I was led to believe that greater diversity brings with it greater achievements. Am I allowed to criticise them or am I then a racist/misogynist/bigot?

BV

Bob

the irony of this increased drive for diversity by CAS is the complete lack of diversity for anyone that has undertaken his specific role. Do as I say…

[Asturias56]

Whoever is in charge its clear that the next "budget" will have to see some serious U turns or some serious cuts

can't see any space for increases in defence spending right now - just hope we get away without more "deferrals" and cuts

[melmothtw]

What - precisely - do we need them to patrol and against what threat?

I would suggest there are some oil and gas facilities in the North Sea that could do with some patrolling right about now.

Whoever is in charge its clear that the next "budget" will have to see some serious U turns or some serious cuts.

Just like the last one then, and the one before that...

[Not_a_boffin]

"What - precisely - do we need them to patrol and against what threat?"

Well there's Illegal immigration, fishing, disaster relief and drugs enforcement and it might be nice to have a force big enough that we don't have to use RFA's and tankers to handle such issues .

Illegal immigration and fishery patrol are properly constabulary tasks - for which we have a Border Force - although DEFRA/MAFF/(inert current name here) has contracted out fishery patrol to the RN. It's not as if we need more there in any case, not least because the illegal immigration bit ends up being a taxi service, rather than preventative.

Disaster relief doesn't usually occur in the UK (unless you count Yorkshire). We have a patrol ship based in the Caribbean for distex and DEO. Trouble with patrol vessels is that they tend to be small and most importantly have a limited complement, which funnily enough limits what they can actually provide. Which is why in hurricane season (like what it is now) we tend to have a larger ship (often known as an RFA tanker) on station to help out. You seem to be suggesting that we should have a dedicated disaster relief ship purely for that. Or are you suggesting that we have load of patrol vessels to do "stuff"?

[Not_a_boffin]

I would suggest there are some oil and gas facilities in the North Sea that could do with some patrolling right about now.

You don't counter that threat with a patrol boat.

[melmothtw]

You don't counter that threat with a patrol boat.

You don't know what that threat is, so how do you know??

[Asturias56]

The question is will any funds be available for more Typhoons, more Poseidons , more of the PBI, more ammunition?

I doubt it

But lets just hope we don't see the usual "cuts must be spread across different departments" mantra.

[Not_a_boffin]

You don't know what that threat is, so how do you know??

If its the sort of conventional threat that we've considered for some decades, you still don't use a patrol boat.

If it's the sort of threat that appears to have been used in the Baltic - and indeed is often referenced wrt subsea cables, you don't stop that with a patrol boat either.

[MPN11]

With the Pound tanking, I suggest even the new uniforms are on the back burner, let alone anything associated with war-fighting that isn't already contracted.

[Ninthace]

If its the sort of conventional threat that we've considered for some decades, you still don't use a patrol boat.

If it's the sort of threat that appears to have been used in the Baltic - and indeed is often referenced wrt subsea cables, you don't stop that with a patrol boat either.
Why not? PBs can carry weaponry.

[Not_a_boffin]

Why not? PBs can carry weaponry.
Rowing boats can carry weaponry.

There's a slightly more important thing called detection, identification and targeting......

[Asturias56]

I see the Govt are already looking for "efficiency savings" in all departments

[Ninthace]

Rowing boats can carry weaponry.

There's a slightly more important thing called detection, identification and targeting......
Same thing applies. Rather depends of what you regard as a PB.

[Not_a_boffin]

Same thing applies. Rather depends of what you regard as a PB.

Once you've clagged on enough kit to do both things credibly against what the likely threats are, it gets a bit big to be a patrol boat.....

[Asturias56]

The way things are going they'll be selling the QE to the Aussies for hard cash soon

[rattman]

The way things are going they'll be selling the QE to the Aussies for hard cash soon

LOL no but RAN might be in the market for a few astutes

[Asturias56]

Interesting that benefits will rise in line with earnings (or so they plan) not inflation - probably the same for the armed services budgets I'd guess

[Brian 48nav]

A quick glance over the top of the parapet again - well you prophets of doom have you noticed the £/USD rate this morning? I am no expert but I said to my wife a week ago 'I bet the £ will be back in a week's time'.

[kration]

Finningley Boy,

With the gigantic mess that Truss and her Chancellor are making of the UK economy, you will be lucky if the size of the reduction in defence
spending that this incompetent shower will announce along with all other public sector and Whitehall cuts on Nov 23rd is less than 5%.
Remember, all that Truss has promised on Defence spending is that by 2030 it will be 3% of GDP.
Truss will be gone WAY before 2030!
Letters of no confidence are already being submitted to the 1922 Committee.


The way things are going we'll reach the 3% of GDP target without having to do any of that tiresome recruitment or procurement stuff.

[melmothtw]

The way things are going they'll be selling the QE to the Aussies for hard cash soon

But what will we use as a floating conference venue without her??

[Asturias56]

The Royal yacht of course which seems to have disappeared from view.

[melmothtw]

The Royal yacht of course which seems to have disappeared from view.

Did you not get the memo? It's the National Flagship now, and sadly it hasn't gone away....

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2022-09-05.47476.h&s=national+flagship

[melmothtw]

Rowing boats can carry weaponry.

There's a slightly more important thing called detection, identification and targeting......

Not sure how useful you think the F-35 is in protecting oil and gas facilities, but it hasn't stopped the Norwegians sending a couple....

https://twitter.com/Forsvarsdep/status/1575869276262584322

[Not_a_boffin]

Not sure how useful you think the F-35 is in protecting oil and gas facilities, but it hasn't stopped the Norwegians sending a couple....

https://twitter.com/Forsvarsdep/status/1575869276262584322
So a 5gen fighter is a patrol boat?

Not sure what point you're trying to make?

[melmothtw]

So a 5gen fighter is a patrol boat?

Not sure what point you're trying to make?

The point I'm making is that you need the gamut of capabilities to conduct a viable national defence, and just because a certain item of equipment may not have been designed for a specific purpose (OPVs and F-35s to protect oil and gas facilities, for example) that doesn't mean they don't have a place. Not rocket science.

[Not_a_boffin]

The point I'm making is that you need the gamut of capabilities to conduct a viable national defence, and just because a certain item of equipment may not have been designed for a specific purpose (OPVs and F-35s to protect oil and gas facilities, for example) that doesn't mean they don't have a place. Not rocket science.
And we have both of them. Plus a wide array of other assets that are equally if not more useful against the sort of threats that do bad things to seabed installations.

[Asturias56]

The problem won't be what sort of assets we have - it'll be the sum total given the way they are talking about cut-backs. The best we can hope for is that they hold the current line on expenditure and the "increase" is kicked down the road until "2030 -ish"

Astounding really.................... especially with a full scale war going on at the other end of Europe :(

[oldmansquipper]

We are constantly being told that we need more diversity in the higher echelons of power. Well we have managed that in fine style by pushing all those dastardly white males out of the corridors of power. Yet now we seem to be suggesting that this ethnically and gender diverse cabinet has made a bit of a cock up with the nations finances. I was led to believe that greater diversity brings with it greater achievements. Am I allowed to criticise them or am I then a racist/misogynist/bigot?

BV

Bv you will be, without doubt, be considered all of those things.

You might as well add the following descriptors to that list

“….An aged WASPish dinosaurian oxygen thief” 😉

OL don't M

[Bob Viking]

I thought as much. I had to google to see what a WASP was though. Guilty as charged. I’m a veteran now as well so definitely a dinosaur too.

BV

[oldmansquipper]

I thought as much. I had to google to see what a WASP was though. Guilty as charged. I’m a veteran now as well so definitely a dinosaur too.

BV



The ‘P’ now stands for ‘privileged’ following a meejah drive for inclusivity. ‘Protestant’ was considered too niche market.

[petit plateau]

The UK's 2020/21 defence budget is about £42bn.

"On Wednesday, the Bank of England was forced to take emergency action to halt a run on pension funds by setting aside £65bn to buy bonds."

Go figure.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8175/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/02/ten-days-that-shook-the-british-political-world-the-inside-story-of-tory-collapse

[Asturias56]

In yesterday's Times Simon Clarke, he Health Sec and long time Truss fan-boy said

"So.logically, other things have to be cancelled, or move to the right in terms of when they are delivered. To govern is to choose".

Same old story folks.................................

[MPN11]

Same old story folks.................................
... to be followed by a deferred Forces Pay rise, then introduced in instalments.

[Toadstool]

... to be followed by a deferred Forces Pay rise, then introduced in instalments.

I’m well used to that by now. It’s the norm.

[Asturias56]

... to be followed by a deferred Forces Pay rise, then introduced in instalments.


You should be proud to serve as an unpaid volunteer!

[Fonsini]

“Front Line First” has a certain ring to it :E

[ORAC]

(Reuters) - Britain will acquire two specialist ships to protect underwater infrastructure such as cables and pipelines, defence minister Ben Wallace said on Sunday, following leaks in the Nord Stream gas pipelines from Russia to Europe.

[melmothtw]

(Reuters) - Britain will acquire two specialist ships to protect underwater infrastructure such as cables and pipelines, defence minister Ben Wallace said on Sunday, following leaks in the Nord Stream gas pipelines from Russia to Europe.

Meanwhile, Norway using...Offshore Patrol Vessels

https://twitter.com/Forsvarsdep/status/1575831720653299712

[ORAC]

Not sure OPVs will help against the reported drone surveillance of their rigs - or in any way against attacks on pipelines and cables.

I presume specialis5 ships would support UUVs for inspection and removal of any surveillance devices and/or explosives placed beside them as well as extensive side sonar etc.

[melmothtw]

Not sure OPVs will help against the reported drone surveillance of their rigs - or in any way against attacks on pipelines and cables.

I presume specialis5 ships would support UUVs for inspection and removal of any surveillance devices and/or explosives placed beside them as well as extensive side sonar etc.

Nothing will protect against every threat, that's the point - you have to invest in a the broad range of capabilities.

[Asturias56]

" you have to invest "

Too damn true - and what do we get..............................

[SASless]

Oddly enough....the October of the US Naval Institute (USNI) monthly magazine cover is dedicated to "Submarines and Undersea Warfare" with articles about Defense and Repair of Undersea Cables (which should also now include pipelines as well) and other Submarine topics relevant to US Navy Submarines.

Several issues in the past year have dealt with US Naval Strategy, Tactics, Logistics, and Resources in ships, subs, aircraft, and personnel.

Our Gulf of Mexico and Arctic Ocean Oil/Gas infrastructure would certainly be targets for opposition forces desiring to cause disruptions to the US Economy directly and the World Economy indirectly.

[pr00ne]

The UK's 2020/21 defence budget is about £42bn.

"On Wednesday, the Bank of England was forced to take emergency action to halt a run on pension funds by setting aside £65bn to buy bonds."

Go figure.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8175/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/02/ten-days-that-shook-the-british-political-world-the-inside-story-of-tory-collapse

Setting aside? It’s the Bank of England! That £65 billion wasn’t existing funds or tax payers money, it was newly printed money.

[dctyke]

Setting aside? It’s the Bank of England! That £65 billion wasn’t existing funds or tax payers money, it was newly printed money.

……but did it have the Kings Head?

[ORAC]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-Role_Ocean_Surveillance_Ship

Multi-Role Ocean Surveillance Ship

[Asturias56]

From Wiki " The review stated that a singular ship would be procured to help deliver a government commitment "

Prepare to be surprised!!

[Asturias56]

I see Rees Mogg said the Royal Yacht will be canned - its in todays Times.............