Defence: Public ignorance, the media, and cutbacks
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“We need to be rather more ruthless, unless there is to be more money, about getting rid of some of the [capabilities] that are actually deployed less often or [are] incapable of being deployed” because of concerns over safety, he said. “I think we do have some of those capabilities and we need to be prepared to slay the odd sacred cow. . . .
Another capability that could be vulnerable is the navy’s amphibious assault ships, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion. The landing craft were singled out as potential sacrifices last year.”
Another capability that could be vulnerable is the navy’s amphibious assault ships, HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion. The landing craft were singled out as potential sacrifices last year.”
The mandarins focus should be on finding the money, not slaughtering sacred cows.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats the whole point - a similar one as made by an ex Adrmiral a couple of weeks ago
If the money isn't there then what we've always thought of as core comptencies will be lost
Mandarins don't find the money - politicians do - I'm sure he's trying to keep as much going as possible but eventually you have to cut otherwise you can't do anything. We gave up on East of Suez, Battleships, strategic bombers and even Carriers - all for the same reason
If the money isn't there then what we've always thought of as core comptencies will be lost
Mandarins don't find the money - politicians do - I'm sure he's trying to keep as much going as possible but eventually you have to cut otherwise you can't do anything. We gave up on East of Suez, Battleships, strategic bombers and even Carriers - all for the same reason
The Perm Sec didn't specify what the "sacred cows" are that may now be vulnerable. But I wouldn't be surprised if in order to get a deal out of the Chancellor, something has to be offered up even if some more money is made available overall. Amphibs may now be too tricky politically, but I suspect Warrior upgrade could be at risk.
incapable of being deployed because of concerns over safety
It's not looking good for the army's Wildcats. In the options for cuts leaked last year, two of the three solutions included axing the Wildcats, I seem to recall. The Puma folks must be feeling a little vulnerable, also.
By far and away Civil Aviation dominates their business.
Why is everyone so worried? We have two brand new aircraft carriers! Yes,I accept that we don't actually have any aircraft to fly off them, Oh and if we manage to crew them both up we won't have enough sailors to man our frigates! But thats not a problem, I'm sure that everyone will be jolly nice to us if we show them those carriers. And we Will get some suitable aircraft one day won't we? Perhaps the Americans can lend us some of their lovely Harriers if things look bad!
TF
TF
From The Times today 22 March 2018. Managing expectations?
“The armed forces must be ready to slay some “sacred cows” to free up cash for new and more deployable technologies, the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence has said.
Stephen Lovegrove did not specify which pieces of military equipment he had in mind but said that some capabilities were not deployed very often or were perhaps no longer able to keep the military personnel using them safe from modern threats.
“The armed forces must be ready to slay some “sacred cows” to free up cash for new and more deployable technologies, the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence has said.
Stephen Lovegrove did not specify which pieces of military equipment he had in mind but said that some capabilities were not deployed very often or were perhaps no longer able to keep the military personnel using them safe from modern threats.
Let’s get rid of capability we never use. Like the CBRN Regiment? And just look how that turned out. Nimrod MPA? Clearly as an island nation we have no need of such a capability. These may not have been his call, but the lessons from those decisions are clear. A global expeditionary capability and top tier status needs investment. Or do we no longer need to physically defeat enemies and hold ground? Not a view that Putin, Xi or our US and NATO allied subscribe to last time I checked.
The myopic incompetence of the managers - they aren’t leaders - is quite simply astonishing. Of course there will be no reduction in demand, just fewer people expected to do more with old kit not designed for the job. Does it really take a significant military loss before they actually bother to invest in the military? Of course it’s a lot easier when neither they nor their sons & daughters will have to deal with the fallout.
Incandescent doesn’t begin to describe it! Do the job you’re paid to do and fight for the Department rather than rolling over and dismantling it! And if you can’t put a case together then step aside for someone who can.
Last edited by Melchett01; 23rd Mar 2018 at 20:15.
Jesus H Christ, does this man ever learn?
Let’s get rid of capability we never use. Like the CBRN Regiment? And just look how that turned out. Nimrod MPA? Clearly as an island nation we have no need of such a capability. These may not have been his call, but the lessons from those decisions are clear. A global expeditionary capability and top tier status needs investment. Or do we no longer need to physically defeat enemies and hold ground? Not a view that Putin, Xi or our US and NATO allied subscribe to last time I checked.
The myopic incompetence of the managers - they aren’t leaders - is quite simply astonishing. Of course there will be no reduction in demand, just fewer people expected to do more with old kit not designed for the job. Does it really take a significant military loss before they actually bother to invest in the military? Of course it’s a lot easier when neither they nor their sons & daughters will have to deal with the fallout.
Incandescent doesn’t begin to describe it! Do the job you’re paid to do and fight for the Department rather than rolling over and dismantling it! And if you can’t put a case together then step aside for someone who can.
Let’s get rid of capability we never use. Like the CBRN Regiment? And just look how that turned out. Nimrod MPA? Clearly as an island nation we have no need of such a capability. These may not have been his call, but the lessons from those decisions are clear. A global expeditionary capability and top tier status needs investment. Or do we no longer need to physically defeat enemies and hold ground? Not a view that Putin, Xi or our US and NATO allied subscribe to last time I checked.
The myopic incompetence of the managers - they aren’t leaders - is quite simply astonishing. Of course there will be no reduction in demand, just fewer people expected to do more with old kit not designed for the job. Does it really take a significant military loss before they actually bother to invest in the military? Of course it’s a lot easier when neither they nor their sons & daughters will have to deal with the fallout.
Incandescent doesn’t begin to describe it! Do the job you’re paid to do and fight for the Department rather than rolling over and dismantling it! And if you can’t put a case together then step aside for someone who can.
While our world is a far more dangerous place than even the Cold War era, the general public seems to have almost no interest in our defence. Their mobile phones are far more interesting. I fear it will take a nasty incident to bring our wafer thin armed forces capability back into their conciseness and I exclude the current nerve agent issue from that.
This is very much the kind of country we are. The NHS and welfare budgets will continue to soak up everything regardless. Not that I'm averse to spending on such concerns, however, it would appear that its the only thing that gets headlines, if for example increases in funding are not as much as what Labour demand. at a time when Defence and Security concerns are quite high should the Government dare to increase by even the smallest of margins defence spending the very next day LBC will have a debate on why we maintain an Army at all? Asking simplistic and glib questions about just who is about to invade us anyway. As we all know, defence arrangements and posture are all about avoiding such matters ever materialising. Indeed, the NHS regardless of how much financial bloat it suffers from will be wheeled out as an acute case of anorexia, suffering cuts to funds while defence, often confused with the arms industry, carry on unaffected by austerity. Absolute nonsense but there you go.
FB
FB
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well TBH the UK defence industry which has also a track record of swallowing vast sums of money with appalling management are the people who a lot of any cash goes to
but I 'm starting to think we're going to have to lose a war, or come damn close, before we change the minds of the public
but I 'm starting to think we're going to have to lose a war, or come damn close, before we change the minds of the public
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rolls Royce actually makes very little from UK MoD. Defence business is now a minority sector.
By far and away Civil Aviation dominates their business.
By far and away Civil Aviation dominates their business.
Thread Starter
Do you really think it would be appropriate and acceptable to the public if defence contractors lobbied for more business?
Anyway - the National Security Capability Review has now been published.
The National Security Council commissioned a focused National Security Capability Review (NSCR) in support of ongoing implementation of the 2015 National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The NSCR includes a new national security doctrine, the Fusion Doctrine. The NSCR updates the SDSR’s assessment of the challenges likely to drive UK security priorities over the next decade, sets out our Global Britain vision and values, and the actions we are taking as a result of the review. It also includes the second annual report on progress against the commitments made in SDSR 2015.
Anyway - the National Security Capability Review has now been published.
The National Security Council commissioned a focused National Security Capability Review (NSCR) in support of ongoing implementation of the 2015 National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review.
The NSCR includes a new national security doctrine, the Fusion Doctrine. The NSCR updates the SDSR’s assessment of the challenges likely to drive UK security priorities over the next decade, sets out our Global Britain vision and values, and the actions we are taking as a result of the review. It also includes the second annual report on progress against the commitments made in SDSR 2015.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF - is there an Engish translation of that statement??.........
a quick scan of the document suggests not a single issue of long term sustainability, substantial recruitment failures and lack of resources is addressed
It's a regurgitation of Ministerial statements and MoD PR releases ..
Awful........
a quick scan of the document suggests not a single issue of long term sustainability, substantial recruitment failures and lack of resources is addressed
It's a regurgitation of Ministerial statements and MoD PR releases ..
Awful........
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Times: Military needs £17bn extra a year, say MPs
Britain must look to spend another £17 billion a year on defence to ensure that the armed forces can deter and respond to the full range of threats, a parliamentary report recommends today.
The defence select committee said that a review now under way must come with a “firm and sustainable” funding settlement so that it can avoid the same fate as past reviews, which have unravelled because of insufficient cash. The committee urged Theresa May, who announced yesterday that government spending on the NHS would grow by £20 billion a year, to increase defence funding to a level “approaching the figure of 3 per cent of GDP which the United Kingdom still maintained as late as the mid-Nineties”.
Britain is one of only five Nato member states to meet the alliance’s minimum requirement of defence spending of 2 per cent of national income. Pushing the present figure of 2.14 per cent of GDP to 3 per cent would be the equivalent of more than £17 billion a year, based on official data. This would “place our defence policy on a sustainable basis to meet new threats and fill existing financial ‘black holes’ ”, Julian Lewis, the Conservative chairman of the committee, said. “Defence is constantly described as the first duty of government,” he said. “The MDP [modernising defence programme] is the government’s opportunity to show that it means what it says.”
The MPs praised Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, for taking the Ministry of Defence out of a cross-Whitehall security review last year. The national security capability review, headed by Sir Mark Sedwill, the national security adviser, would not have enabled the MoD to request an increase in funding from the Treasury — which it needs to fund plans set out in a 2015 review of defence. Instead, defence chiefs were forced to draw up options for deep cuts to the Royal Navy, army and Royal Air Force to balance the books. Mr Lewis said that the process would “have resulted in further disastrous cuts to the armed forces”.
Defence sources fear that the subsequent modernising defence programme launched by Mr Williamson will be a “fudge” unless he is able to secure funding from Philip Hammond, the chancellor. The two men are due to discuss the issue tomorrow.
In their report, the MPs recommended that the MDP produce a “menu” of military requirements, with an estimated cost of the capabilities listed. “The government, and the country, will then be able to see the scale of what it is necessary to invest in defence,” the report said. The MPs said that increased investment was particularly required in enhancing Britain’s ability to track and confront enemy submarines; enabling the navy to fire cruise missiles from frigates or destroyers; and ensuring that the army was able to deploy a war-fighting division. This requires the target size of the regular army not to be cut below 82,000. It is already some 5,000 soldiers below strength.
The report highlighted serious holes in the army’s fighting power, which would leave it vulnerable in a conflict against an adversary such as Russia. “There are serious deficiencies in the quantities of armour, armoured vehicles and artillery available to the British Army,” it said. The report said investment must ensure that the military was able to exploit new technologies as well as use more legacy equipment to remain effective.
Britain must look to spend another £17 billion a year on defence to ensure that the armed forces can deter and respond to the full range of threats, a parliamentary report recommends today.
The defence select committee said that a review now under way must come with a “firm and sustainable” funding settlement so that it can avoid the same fate as past reviews, which have unravelled because of insufficient cash. The committee urged Theresa May, who announced yesterday that government spending on the NHS would grow by £20 billion a year, to increase defence funding to a level “approaching the figure of 3 per cent of GDP which the United Kingdom still maintained as late as the mid-Nineties”.
Britain is one of only five Nato member states to meet the alliance’s minimum requirement of defence spending of 2 per cent of national income. Pushing the present figure of 2.14 per cent of GDP to 3 per cent would be the equivalent of more than £17 billion a year, based on official data. This would “place our defence policy on a sustainable basis to meet new threats and fill existing financial ‘black holes’ ”, Julian Lewis, the Conservative chairman of the committee, said. “Defence is constantly described as the first duty of government,” he said. “The MDP [modernising defence programme] is the government’s opportunity to show that it means what it says.”
The MPs praised Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, for taking the Ministry of Defence out of a cross-Whitehall security review last year. The national security capability review, headed by Sir Mark Sedwill, the national security adviser, would not have enabled the MoD to request an increase in funding from the Treasury — which it needs to fund plans set out in a 2015 review of defence. Instead, defence chiefs were forced to draw up options for deep cuts to the Royal Navy, army and Royal Air Force to balance the books. Mr Lewis said that the process would “have resulted in further disastrous cuts to the armed forces”.
Defence sources fear that the subsequent modernising defence programme launched by Mr Williamson will be a “fudge” unless he is able to secure funding from Philip Hammond, the chancellor. The two men are due to discuss the issue tomorrow.
In their report, the MPs recommended that the MDP produce a “menu” of military requirements, with an estimated cost of the capabilities listed. “The government, and the country, will then be able to see the scale of what it is necessary to invest in defence,” the report said. The MPs said that increased investment was particularly required in enhancing Britain’s ability to track and confront enemy submarines; enabling the navy to fire cruise missiles from frigates or destroyers; and ensuring that the army was able to deploy a war-fighting division. This requires the target size of the regular army not to be cut below 82,000. It is already some 5,000 soldiers below strength.
The report highlighted serious holes in the army’s fighting power, which would leave it vulnerable in a conflict against an adversary such as Russia. “There are serious deficiencies in the quantities of armour, armoured vehicles and artillery available to the British Army,” it said. The report said investment must ensure that the military was able to exploit new technologies as well as use more legacy equipment to remain effective.
In their report, the MPs recommended that the MDP produce a “menu” of military requirements, with an estimated cost of the capabilities listed.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...dTextAnchor043
68.We have recently reported on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme.147 In that report, we accepted assurances from the MoD and from the manufacturer Lockheed Martin that a number of reported developmental problems were being addressed and we look forward to being kept updated on them. We reiterate our view that the MoD’s refusal to disclose cost estimates for the F-35 to Parliament is unacceptable and risks undermining public confidence in the programme. As well as providing greater clarity on this matter, the Department should also use the MDP as an opportunity to make clear whether it remains its policy to buy the intended complement of 138 aircraft and what mix of variants it now envisages purchasing for the remainder.148
69.A key component of anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations, mentioned above in the maritime section, is the airborne ASW capability delivered by maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). The UK is re-establishing its long-range MPA capability with the purchase of nine Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft from the United States. We have received detailed written evidence from former RAF officers with extensive experience of ASW operations who argue that the intended aircraft and crew provision for the MPA force is too low to fulfil the range of tasks under its responsibility. Unrealistic assumptions have been made about the ability of NATO allies to contribute to MPA provision and that at least 16 aircraft and a higher crewing requirement is needed to attain the necessary coverage.149
70.The UK has no substantial missile defence capability.150 The 2015 SDSR recognised the threat from state and non-state actors acquiring increasingly sophisticated missile technology. Commitments were made to invest in a ground-based ballistic missile defence (BMD) radar system to enhance NATO’s BMD Network, and to investigate the potential of Type 45 destroyers taking on a BMD role.151 Answers to written questions152 have indicated that these capabilities are still in their early developmental stages. The Department should make clear in the MDP its proposed way forward on BMD, including on both radars and potential interceptors, whether in a UK or combined NATO context. In addition, the Department should consider how it will address the need for point defence—including against cruise missiles—at key installations in the UK, not least the principal RAF airbases
71.The Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) capability provided by the RAF’s E-3D Sentry fleet has been allowed to decline. The 2015 SDSR committed the RAF to keeping the fleet in service until 2035,153 but the E-3D aircraft are no longer maintained and upgraded to the required avionics standards, and flying hours in recent years have been substantially reduced. AWACS provide airborne surveillance and battle management capability over extended range, crucial in a complex airspace contested by peer adversaries. Recent reports indicate that a replacement for Sentry is being considered as part of the MDP.154 The full range of available options including (but not confined to) an upgrade of the E-3D Sentry aircraft, should be considered by the RAF to restore its AWACS capability.
72.The ability of aircraft to penetrate sophisticated enemy air defence systems must be addressed. The RAF’s principal anti-radar suppression of enemy air defence (SEAD) weapon, designed to target and neutralise enemy air defence systems, was abandoned in 2013.155 The advanced capability of the F-35 may compensate for this, but the safety of the non-stealth aircraft also still in service—such as Typhoon—must also be considered.
68.We have recently reported on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme.147 In that report, we accepted assurances from the MoD and from the manufacturer Lockheed Martin that a number of reported developmental problems were being addressed and we look forward to being kept updated on them. We reiterate our view that the MoD’s refusal to disclose cost estimates for the F-35 to Parliament is unacceptable and risks undermining public confidence in the programme. As well as providing greater clarity on this matter, the Department should also use the MDP as an opportunity to make clear whether it remains its policy to buy the intended complement of 138 aircraft and what mix of variants it now envisages purchasing for the remainder.148
69.A key component of anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations, mentioned above in the maritime section, is the airborne ASW capability delivered by maritime patrol aircraft (MPA). The UK is re-establishing its long-range MPA capability with the purchase of nine Boeing P-8A Poseidon aircraft from the United States. We have received detailed written evidence from former RAF officers with extensive experience of ASW operations who argue that the intended aircraft and crew provision for the MPA force is too low to fulfil the range of tasks under its responsibility. Unrealistic assumptions have been made about the ability of NATO allies to contribute to MPA provision and that at least 16 aircraft and a higher crewing requirement is needed to attain the necessary coverage.149
70.The UK has no substantial missile defence capability.150 The 2015 SDSR recognised the threat from state and non-state actors acquiring increasingly sophisticated missile technology. Commitments were made to invest in a ground-based ballistic missile defence (BMD) radar system to enhance NATO’s BMD Network, and to investigate the potential of Type 45 destroyers taking on a BMD role.151 Answers to written questions152 have indicated that these capabilities are still in their early developmental stages. The Department should make clear in the MDP its proposed way forward on BMD, including on both radars and potential interceptors, whether in a UK or combined NATO context. In addition, the Department should consider how it will address the need for point defence—including against cruise missiles—at key installations in the UK, not least the principal RAF airbases
71.The Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) capability provided by the RAF’s E-3D Sentry fleet has been allowed to decline. The 2015 SDSR committed the RAF to keeping the fleet in service until 2035,153 but the E-3D aircraft are no longer maintained and upgraded to the required avionics standards, and flying hours in recent years have been substantially reduced. AWACS provide airborne surveillance and battle management capability over extended range, crucial in a complex airspace contested by peer adversaries. Recent reports indicate that a replacement for Sentry is being considered as part of the MDP.154 The full range of available options including (but not confined to) an upgrade of the E-3D Sentry aircraft, should be considered by the RAF to restore its AWACS capability.
72.The ability of aircraft to penetrate sophisticated enemy air defence systems must be addressed. The RAF’s principal anti-radar suppression of enemy air defence (SEAD) weapon, designed to target and neutralise enemy air defence systems, was abandoned in 2013.155 The advanced capability of the F-35 may compensate for this, but the safety of the non-stealth aircraft also still in service—such as Typhoon—must also be considered.
Yes, interesting Harry! And, the report states that it makes no attempt to address the relative importance of UK Defence capabilities, just highlight the Headline issues! Pity. I would have said it is more important to highlight the relative importance of capabilities and identify where greater capability is required, not just mush about, saying "this and that", as they do. Weak. 
OAP
OAP
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...fence-spending
Williamson losing fight with Treasury for rise in defence spending
The defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, is unlikely to receive any increase in defence spending in the coming year in spite of waging a relentless political campaign against the Treasury, according to Whitehall sources.
Williamson is scheduled to meet chancellor Philip Hammond in the next fortnight in a renewed attempt to secure concessions ahead of a Nato summit in Brussels on 11 and 12 July. But a source familiar with the negotiations said there is no chance of the Treasury, faced with a promised rise in NHS spending and other demands on the budget, conceding any more cash to the Ministry of Defence.
Williamson met Hammond and Theresa May on Tuesday to discuss the results of a year-long defence review scheduled to be announced before the Nato summit. But the meeting broke up without him securing any promises of more cash. He also met the chief secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss, but that too ended without him wringing any more funding.......
Williamson’s intense politicking, backed by a vocal group of Conservative backbenchers, is beginning to grate with May and Hammond, according to a source, who added that while they were sympathetic to the needs of the military they had become irritated by his tactics. The MoD is still hoping to secure some more money in the next few weeks, and, failing that, in the autumn. However, the source said the best the MoD could hope for was a token rise in spending in autumn or early next year, though nothing close to the billions Williamson was seeking.A second Whitehall source said: “It is clear the Treasury do not want to splash cash around.”
With the government close to announcing the outcome of the public pay review, Williamson is also pushing for a recommendation of an inflation-beating 3% for the forces to be honoured in full. While the Treasury is reported to be sympathetic to a rise for the military, it is concerned about the impact of pay rises across the public sector and looking for a compromise from Williamson. The Treasury has apparently suggested meeting the 3% “in spirit”, perhaps with compromises over the three-year period......
Williamson losing fight with Treasury for rise in defence spending
The defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, is unlikely to receive any increase in defence spending in the coming year in spite of waging a relentless political campaign against the Treasury, according to Whitehall sources.
Williamson is scheduled to meet chancellor Philip Hammond in the next fortnight in a renewed attempt to secure concessions ahead of a Nato summit in Brussels on 11 and 12 July. But a source familiar with the negotiations said there is no chance of the Treasury, faced with a promised rise in NHS spending and other demands on the budget, conceding any more cash to the Ministry of Defence.
Williamson met Hammond and Theresa May on Tuesday to discuss the results of a year-long defence review scheduled to be announced before the Nato summit. But the meeting broke up without him securing any promises of more cash. He also met the chief secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss, but that too ended without him wringing any more funding.......
Williamson’s intense politicking, backed by a vocal group of Conservative backbenchers, is beginning to grate with May and Hammond, according to a source, who added that while they were sympathetic to the needs of the military they had become irritated by his tactics. The MoD is still hoping to secure some more money in the next few weeks, and, failing that, in the autumn. However, the source said the best the MoD could hope for was a token rise in spending in autumn or early next year, though nothing close to the billions Williamson was seeking.A second Whitehall source said: “It is clear the Treasury do not want to splash cash around.”
With the government close to announcing the outcome of the public pay review, Williamson is also pushing for a recommendation of an inflation-beating 3% for the forces to be honoured in full. While the Treasury is reported to be sympathetic to a rise for the military, it is concerned about the impact of pay rises across the public sector and looking for a compromise from Williamson. The Treasury has apparently suggested meeting the 3% “in spirit”, perhaps with compromises over the three-year period......