UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Thread Starter
Has anyone actually met Cummings?
Most of the government paralysis comes from inert CS, and that’s been the case for many years. Cummings has got them thinking now.
There has to be change at the top, and the IR won’t get into that. There are far too many Queens, and a dwindling number of working bees. Cummings is more than welcome to take a hatchet there, because just look east.
Most of the government paralysis comes from inert CS, and that’s been the case for many years. Cummings has got them thinking now.
There has to be change at the top, and the IR won’t get into that. There are far too many Queens, and a dwindling number of working bees. Cummings is more than welcome to take a hatchet there, because just look east.
One of my family knows him reasonably well - says he's quite a nice bloke out of the office but pretty fearsome in it - and not one to dodge a fight, Sounds like Bolton I think...... convinced he's right and that's it
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
As always, amend to replace bl*gspot, or just do a search for the thinpinstrippedline.
Call for evidence email address included for those that want to write in to No 10.......
https://thinpinstripedline.blogsp* t.com/2020/08/integrated-review-call-for-evidence-is.html
Integrated Review 'call for evidence' - Is Trident To Be Scrapped?
The Cabinet Office has published a ‘call for evidence’ to support the Integrated Security Review. This is a chance for people to submit evidence to offer their views on some of the challenges facing UK national security.......
Call for evidence email address included for those that want to write in to No 10.......
https://thinpinstripedline.blogsp* t.com/2020/08/integrated-review-call-for-evidence-is.html
Integrated Review 'call for evidence' - Is Trident To Be Scrapped?
The Cabinet Office has published a ‘call for evidence’ to support the Integrated Security Review. This is a chance for people to submit evidence to offer their views on some of the challenges facing UK national security.......
Thread Starter
Very interesting
"The call for evidence is accompanied by a four page document setting out both the context that the review is operating in, and also some of the questions that need to be addressed. It is a fascinating read as an insight into the decision making process, and the likely direction of travel that will result. For starters it is telling that the UK Government sees the future as being one of a global order where climate change, economic challenge and technological change drive much of the worlds problems. The document talks of the challenges around increased poverty, economic problems and how corporations will have GDP bigger than countries – making them highly credible actors.
At the same time it recognises that the world is getting more complex, that the risk of state on state conflict is growing and that there is a pivot towards Asia as a dominant economic centre of attention. It notes that within the next few years 80% of the worlds poorest population are likely to live in fragile states.
This headmark vision is compelling in that it tells us that the likely future laydown and structure of UK national security will be built around trying to tackle very complex problems that will require the whole of government to respond. In other words, while the armed forces will have a place in this response, so too will development, finance, economic trade and soft power and diplomacy – the future is not going to be one of the armed forces conducting national security in isolation. ....................... In identifying that the future global balance of power is likely to lie in Asia, the Review offers the UK an intriguing option. For the first time since WW2 the balance of power in the Euro-Atlantic is arguably of less significance than the balance of power in the Asia Pacific region – but for the UK, active participation in military issues moves from all but mandatory forced interest to a far more discretionary one. ....................... this could beg the question ‘what does the UK need globally deployable armed forces for’?
As a non-resident power, other than the Five Powers Defence Arrangement (FPDA) and the Brunei garrison there is no real military commitment to the region. This gives planners the luxury of time to decide if they want to commit militarily to the region, or if in future the UK sees its interests as being best served in a non military way out there.
The call for secure stable Euro-Atlantic neighbourhood would seem to emphasise the importance of NATO at the heart of UK defence, although no suggestions are made about what role the UK will play in NATO and what form it may take. The most telling line is that of ‘reformed and refocused approach to Defence’ – this single line is powerful. Reformed implies major change is coming, potentially to both structures and people, and also equipment. Refocused implies stepping away from some tasks to look at others instead.
It is likely then that whatever the final review settles on, the structure of the UK forces is likely to change significantly as a result of this review. The emphasis on the role of resilience, NATO security, science, climate change and so on does not instinctively suggest that we will see a military that looks like it does now................ This is not the time to play Fantasy Fleets, but it is a time to look more widely at the direction the Government wants to move in and realise that the Armed Forces are likely to face very substantial changes soon.
"The call for evidence is accompanied by a four page document setting out both the context that the review is operating in, and also some of the questions that need to be addressed. It is a fascinating read as an insight into the decision making process, and the likely direction of travel that will result. For starters it is telling that the UK Government sees the future as being one of a global order where climate change, economic challenge and technological change drive much of the worlds problems. The document talks of the challenges around increased poverty, economic problems and how corporations will have GDP bigger than countries – making them highly credible actors.
At the same time it recognises that the world is getting more complex, that the risk of state on state conflict is growing and that there is a pivot towards Asia as a dominant economic centre of attention. It notes that within the next few years 80% of the worlds poorest population are likely to live in fragile states.
This headmark vision is compelling in that it tells us that the likely future laydown and structure of UK national security will be built around trying to tackle very complex problems that will require the whole of government to respond. In other words, while the armed forces will have a place in this response, so too will development, finance, economic trade and soft power and diplomacy – the future is not going to be one of the armed forces conducting national security in isolation. ....................... In identifying that the future global balance of power is likely to lie in Asia, the Review offers the UK an intriguing option. For the first time since WW2 the balance of power in the Euro-Atlantic is arguably of less significance than the balance of power in the Asia Pacific region – but for the UK, active participation in military issues moves from all but mandatory forced interest to a far more discretionary one. ....................... this could beg the question ‘what does the UK need globally deployable armed forces for’?
As a non-resident power, other than the Five Powers Defence Arrangement (FPDA) and the Brunei garrison there is no real military commitment to the region. This gives planners the luxury of time to decide if they want to commit militarily to the region, or if in future the UK sees its interests as being best served in a non military way out there.
The call for secure stable Euro-Atlantic neighbourhood would seem to emphasise the importance of NATO at the heart of UK defence, although no suggestions are made about what role the UK will play in NATO and what form it may take. The most telling line is that of ‘reformed and refocused approach to Defence’ – this single line is powerful. Reformed implies major change is coming, potentially to both structures and people, and also equipment. Refocused implies stepping away from some tasks to look at others instead.
It is likely then that whatever the final review settles on, the structure of the UK forces is likely to change significantly as a result of this review. The emphasis on the role of resilience, NATO security, science, climate change and so on does not instinctively suggest that we will see a military that looks like it does now................ This is not the time to play Fantasy Fleets, but it is a time to look more widely at the direction the Government wants to move in and realise that the Armed Forces are likely to face very substantial changes soon.
Alfred-the-great
too late, he already knows, and here is submission, parts of which have been displayed on the bearded one thread
https://committees.parliament.uk/dow...ug=isd0013html
too late, he already knows, and here is submission, parts of which have been displayed on the bearded one thread
https://committees.parliament.uk/dow...ug=isd0013html
Alfred-the-great
too late, he already knows, and here is submission, parts of which have been displayed on the bearded one thread
https://committees.parliament.uk/dow...ug=isd0013html
too late, he already knows, and here is submission, parts of which have been displayed on the bearded one thread
https://committees.parliament.uk/dow...ug=isd0013html
Oh ffs...
Indeed, subsequent "skirmishes" such as Iraq, Syria, Kosovo and so on - (all of which have had utterly devastating consequences for those intimately involved) indicated a huge shift. 9/11 was another pivotal moment (not to mention totally messing up my career change plans at that time - flew my first IR thinking I was missing a movie - till the CAA Examiner explained and asked if I still wished to fly the Test - bit of a waste that was in hindsight!). Huawei is another example - rightly or wrongly - I just don't have the facts to make a clear decision. Just maybe this is a real "review of the meaning of National Defence" which, while probably devastating for the Armed Forces, is maybe what is needed for society.
Yes, based on that, you are correct in assuming that my penchant for some "alternative views" were noted (subtly adversely!) in my Mil Staff Reports - most 1st, 2nd and 3rd RO's considering they had "survived" having had me on their Staff if they themselves had not been called aside by their superiors to explain what this "hand grenade" was that they had working under them! Off the record, many agreed with me but, officially, I was viewed as a bit of a renegade! Ho hum!
Cheers, H 'n' H (called such for, as many would say, very good reason!!!)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ber-space.html
Here we go,
meanwhile the USAF has signed a deal with Boeing to supply eight F-15EX aircraft to evaluate as an F-15C and D replacement. I do hope Wallace and Gromit aren't disappearing down a path toward an irrecoverable disaster, enthralled by space robots and swarms of miniature drones as if a swarm of angry Bees? Or Hornets!?
FB
Here we go,
meanwhile the USAF has signed a deal with Boeing to supply eight F-15EX aircraft to evaluate as an F-15C and D replacement. I do hope Wallace and Gromit aren't disappearing down a path toward an irrecoverable disaster, enthralled by space robots and swarms of miniature drones as if a swarm of angry Bees? Or Hornets!?
FB
Last edited by Finningley Boy; 15th Aug 2020 at 03:01.
Thread Starter
H'nH - 
I must decline any thanks for the thoughts posted above - they are a shortened version of the full article that ORAC found - I recommend reading the whole thing
Integrated Review 'call for evidence' - Is Trident To Be Scrapped?
I must decline any thanks for the thoughts posted above - they are a shortened version of the full article that ORAC found - I recommend reading the whole thingIntegrated Review 'call for evidence' - Is Trident To Be Scrapped?
He’ll be submitting the same thing to the 2030 Defence Review, explaining how hopeless the Tornado is (sic). There used to be a rule that you couldn’t resubmit material to the Select Committee to avoid the risk of single-issue fanatics sending in the same material to every inquiry, but that seems to go unapplied now. The current submission is a distillation of his Phoenix Think Tank article (now deleted) from about 2009.
H'nH - I must decline any thanks for the thoughts posted above - they are a shortened version of the full article that ORAC found - I recommend reading the whole thing
Integrated Review 'call for evidence' - Is Trident To Be Scrapped?
I must decline any thanks for the thoughts posted above - they are a shortened version of the full article that ORAC found - I recommend reading the whole thingIntegrated Review 'call for evidence' - Is Trident To Be Scrapped?
I just fully endorsed your conclusions as quoted as they exactly matched my views based on the call for submissions info on the .gov website. If the review breaks with past reviews and "does what it says on the tin" we could be in for interesting times. Now, if only I can recall what I learned on the Staff Course 're concise writing skills...... 
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...anks-ws87tdgbg
Defence chiefs face battle over plan to scrap tanks
Military chiefs have drawn up plans to mothball all of Britain’s tanks under radical proposals to modernise the armed forces. The move would lead to other military assets being given priority over heavy armour, The Times understands.
The government is examining the controversial idea as the cost of upgrading Britain’s ageing fleet of 227 Challenger 2 tanks, and the 388 Warrior armoured fighting vehicles that support them on the battlefield, has soared. Both vehicles were branded “obsolete” last year and the argument has been made in the Ministry of Defence that the changing character of warfare demands more investment in cybercapabilities, space and other cutting-edge technologies......
Talks related to giving up the tank are part of the government’s integrated foreign policy, defence and security review, which is due to conclude in November. A government source said last night: “We know that a number of bold decisions need to be taken in order to properly protect British security and rebalance defence interests to meet the new threats we face.”
While options remain on the table to upgrade the Challenger 2 or to buy the German Leopard 2 tank, Britain is already sounding out Nato partners about the proposal to give up heavy armour and overhaul its military contribution to the alliance.
The new offer would focus on taking a leadership role in attack aviation, offering all 50 Apache helicopters to allies along with heavy-lift refuelling and battlefield reconnaissance helicopters, plus training and support facilities. Britain would also offer to contribute brigades that help early entry into theatre as well as cyber, electronic and unconventional warfare capabilities.
British liaison officers have raised the plan in recent weeks with senior personnel within the US army in Europe and Nato’s allied land command in Izmir, Turkey, it is understood. Proposals have also been drawn up to close the British Army’s training base in Alberta, Canada, where it practises heavy armour live-firing drills.....
General Sir Richard Barrons, former commander joint forces command, expressed support for transforming land combat power and said that Britain could lead the way in a modernisation effort. “The future is about manned/unmanned autonomous things [personnel remotely controlling or deploying unmanned equipment]. If you were to recapitalise your land army, you would not simply press on, spending all your money on a small number of manned platforms, because you’ll be putting yourself another generation behind,” he said........
Max Hastings Comment
....Tanks are still valued by almost every army in the world as mobile bastions, carrying guns that deliver a formidable punch, as they did in Kuwait in 1991, and Iraq from 2003. Yet they are immensely expensive, and ever-more vulnerable to air power including drones and attack helicopters, and to cheap missiles, such as every guerilla force in the word possesses.
The British Army would dearly like to sustain at least a modest tank force, but it faces brutal resource choices. Nobody should be sentimental about weapons of war, whether longbows, pikes, Brown Bess muskets — or tanks. It is almost unthinkable that a British army will engage the Russian, Chinese or Iranian armies. So whom would we upgrade the aged Challengers to fight? The curtain is coming down on a century-old British story, but there should be no sobbing in the stalls.
Defence chiefs face battle over plan to scrap tanks
Military chiefs have drawn up plans to mothball all of Britain’s tanks under radical proposals to modernise the armed forces. The move would lead to other military assets being given priority over heavy armour, The Times understands.
The government is examining the controversial idea as the cost of upgrading Britain’s ageing fleet of 227 Challenger 2 tanks, and the 388 Warrior armoured fighting vehicles that support them on the battlefield, has soared. Both vehicles were branded “obsolete” last year and the argument has been made in the Ministry of Defence that the changing character of warfare demands more investment in cybercapabilities, space and other cutting-edge technologies......
Talks related to giving up the tank are part of the government’s integrated foreign policy, defence and security review, which is due to conclude in November. A government source said last night: “We know that a number of bold decisions need to be taken in order to properly protect British security and rebalance defence interests to meet the new threats we face.”
While options remain on the table to upgrade the Challenger 2 or to buy the German Leopard 2 tank, Britain is already sounding out Nato partners about the proposal to give up heavy armour and overhaul its military contribution to the alliance.
The new offer would focus on taking a leadership role in attack aviation, offering all 50 Apache helicopters to allies along with heavy-lift refuelling and battlefield reconnaissance helicopters, plus training and support facilities. Britain would also offer to contribute brigades that help early entry into theatre as well as cyber, electronic and unconventional warfare capabilities.
British liaison officers have raised the plan in recent weeks with senior personnel within the US army in Europe and Nato’s allied land command in Izmir, Turkey, it is understood. Proposals have also been drawn up to close the British Army’s training base in Alberta, Canada, where it practises heavy armour live-firing drills.....
General Sir Richard Barrons, former commander joint forces command, expressed support for transforming land combat power and said that Britain could lead the way in a modernisation effort. “The future is about manned/unmanned autonomous things [personnel remotely controlling or deploying unmanned equipment]. If you were to recapitalise your land army, you would not simply press on, spending all your money on a small number of manned platforms, because you’ll be putting yourself another generation behind,” he said........
Max Hastings Comment
....Tanks are still valued by almost every army in the world as mobile bastions, carrying guns that deliver a formidable punch, as they did in Kuwait in 1991, and Iraq from 2003. Yet they are immensely expensive, and ever-more vulnerable to air power including drones and attack helicopters, and to cheap missiles, such as every guerilla force in the word possesses.
The British Army would dearly like to sustain at least a modest tank force, but it faces brutal resource choices. Nobody should be sentimental about weapons of war, whether longbows, pikes, Brown Bess muskets — or tanks. It is almost unthinkable that a British army will engage the Russian, Chinese or Iranian armies. So whom would we upgrade the aged Challengers to fight? The curtain is coming down on a century-old British story, but there should be no sobbing in the stalls.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One or two sweeping assumptions there 
Kinda suggests that "conventional deterrence" is a thing of the past.
It is almost unthinkable that a British army will engage the Russian, Chinese or Iranian armies.
I guess we can give up ton of capability on that basis then?
What's really ironic though is the last politician I heard openly expressing these ideas was Neil Kinnock
Kinda suggests that "conventional deterrence" is a thing of the past.
It is almost unthinkable that a British army will engage the Russian, Chinese or Iranian armies.
I guess we can give up ton of capability on that basis then?
What's really ironic though is the last politician I heard openly expressing these ideas was Neil Kinnock
I guess tanks are irrelevant, right up to the point where the enemy pitches up to the fight wrapped in them.
As an 'air' guy I can espouse how easily we can trash tanks these days. But in a theatre of ops where the weather and geography are against you and CDE is a concern then the mobile gun wrapped in armour looks a bit more credible. Tank warfare, as currently used in conflicts various, is very different to the days of old when they provided the punch for the troops to follow. Dismounted troops are often in the vanguard now, with tanks following behind to provide the HE-on-call after the find & fix stage. The tanks hide in buildings, under bridges and in complicated urban settings. The Fulda gap it is not.
If the logic about the viability of tanks and fighting vehicles is accepted then, by extension, any army formation is irrelevant - and I am not sure we are there. Again, as an air guy I can wince at how totally unprepared the British Army would be if it had to fight even for brief periods without total air dominance above. The last two decades has made the average British Army officer think of 'air' as the friendly domain that lives to support it. Once filled with airburst bombs and cluster munitions it will look very different, for a fraction of a second. Given how thin our true 'air dominance' capability has become I am amazed that the British Army has not seen fit to wrap itself in a layered and mobile GBAD system when it considers near-peer conflicts.
As an 'air' guy I can espouse how easily we can trash tanks these days. But in a theatre of ops where the weather and geography are against you and CDE is a concern then the mobile gun wrapped in armour looks a bit more credible. Tank warfare, as currently used in conflicts various, is very different to the days of old when they provided the punch for the troops to follow. Dismounted troops are often in the vanguard now, with tanks following behind to provide the HE-on-call after the find & fix stage. The tanks hide in buildings, under bridges and in complicated urban settings. The Fulda gap it is not.
If the logic about the viability of tanks and fighting vehicles is accepted then, by extension, any army formation is irrelevant - and I am not sure we are there. Again, as an air guy I can wince at how totally unprepared the British Army would be if it had to fight even for brief periods without total air dominance above. The last two decades has made the average British Army officer think of 'air' as the friendly domain that lives to support it. Once filled with airburst bombs and cluster munitions it will look very different, for a fraction of a second. Given how thin our true 'air dominance' capability has become I am amazed that the British Army has not seen fit to wrap itself in a layered and mobile GBAD system when it considers near-peer conflicts.
Thread Starter
Something has to give - the money just isn't there to replace the UK armoured forces AND do everything else.
JTO makes some good points but it's hard to envisage a fight were a 100 or so new heavy tanks would make a difference. If you're up against the Russians you'd need a LOT more, and anyone else is along way away - just transporting a large tank force would be a nightmare. I can't see the Brits fighting the Chinese on land either - so who is left? TBH I've always felt the British Armies real lack of ground based AA to cover armour and infantry has meant they could be in for a nasty shock against some opponents
JTO makes some good points but it's hard to envisage a fight were a 100 or so new heavy tanks would make a difference. If you're up against the Russians you'd need a LOT more, and anyone else is along way away - just transporting a large tank force would be a nightmare. I can't see the Brits fighting the Chinese on land either - so who is left? TBH I've always felt the British Armies real lack of ground based AA to cover armour and infantry has meant they could be in for a nasty shock against some opponents
Another article in The Times today.
Don’t eviscerate armed forces, warns ex-military chief Lord Stirrup
Intro
Don’t eviscerate armed forces, warns ex-military chief Lord Stirrup
Intro
The armed forces must not be “eviscerated” as the government attempts to recover from the economic fallout of the coronavirus, a former chief of the defence staff has warned. Air Chief Marshal Lord Stirrup said the armed forces must not be seen as an “easy option” for cuts. Official figures revealed last week that the crisis had taken national debt above £2 trillion for the first time.
There are concerns that troop numbers could be heavily cut and airbases could be closed as part of the defence and security review, with money instead being directed into cyberwarfare, space and artificial intelligence.
Lord Stirrup said: “It’s a concern that the size of all of the armed forces has been dropping. While their capabilities have been increasing you can’t be in two places at once. If you are too small the scale of what you are able to achieve becomes strictly limited.
There are concerns that troop numbers could be heavily cut and airbases could be closed as part of the defence and security review, with money instead being directed into cyberwarfare, space and artificial intelligence.
Lord Stirrup said: “It’s a concern that the size of all of the armed forces has been dropping. While their capabilities have been increasing you can’t be in two places at once. If you are too small the scale of what you are able to achieve becomes strictly limited.
