Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

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

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

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

Old 21st Jul 2020, 10:58
  #361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Beyond the M25
Posts: 523
Received 48 Likes on 24 Posts
Yes, uncalled for. Apologies for that, KB.
Mil-26Man is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2020, 17:31
  #362 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,370
Received 359 Likes on 208 Posts
Originally Posted by Countdown begins
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.

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
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2020, 14:58
  #363 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,356
Received 1,565 Likes on 712 Posts
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.......
ORAC is online now  
Old 14th Aug 2020, 16:56
  #364 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,370
Received 359 Likes on 208 Posts
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.

Asturias56 is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2020, 18:20
  #365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 834
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
Quick - someone tell Sharky...
alfred_the_great is online now  
Old 14th Aug 2020, 19:17
  #366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Grid ref confused
Age: 63
Posts: 814
Received 17 Likes on 9 Posts
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
cynicalint is online now  
Old 14th Aug 2020, 19:51
  #367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 834
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by cynicalint
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
is that from this time around? I thought it was from the last review.

Oh ffs...
alfred_the_great is online now  
Old 14th Aug 2020, 20:04
  #368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Grid ref confused
Age: 63
Posts: 814
Received 17 Likes on 9 Posts
ATG,
Dated 19 Jan 2020
cynicalint is online now  
Old 14th Aug 2020, 20:26
  #369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Here 'n' there!
Posts: 588
Received 10 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Very interesting. ...................... 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.
Totally agree with your opening and closing statements Asturias56. IMVHO, for some time, the whole concept of the popularist definition of "defence" has needed something of a rethink, an idea immortalized a few years back now in the opening title scenes for "Have I Got News For You" showing the gas pipeline between Russia and Europe being turned off. That struck a real chord with me in that I have long seen threats to societies as widening far beyond the previous "Cold War"-style model I was used to and, to a greater extent, was relatively comfortable with.

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!!!)
Hot 'n' High is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2020, 02:21
  #370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 63
Posts: 1,853
Received 77 Likes on 43 Posts
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

Last edited by Finningley Boy; 15th Aug 2020 at 03:01.
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2020, 09:03
  #371 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,370
Received 359 Likes on 208 Posts
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?
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2020, 09:48
  #372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 2,007
Received 16 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
is that from this time around? I thought it was from the last review.

Oh ffs...
He’s effectively just resubmitted the last submission he made, which was a resubmission of....

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.
Archimedes is online now  
Old 15th Aug 2020, 20:38
  #373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Here 'n' there!
Posts: 588
Received 10 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
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?
Indeed I read it all and even downloaded the submissions template before making my reply to your post. 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......
Hot 'n' High is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 06:11
  #374 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,356
Received 1,565 Likes on 712 Posts
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.
ORAC is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 07:53
  #375 (permalink)  
 
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






Richard Dangle is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 08:33
  #376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
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.

Just This Once... is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 08:52
  #377 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,370
Received 359 Likes on 208 Posts
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
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 09:44
  #378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 77
Posts: 1,373
Received 21 Likes on 13 Posts
Another article in The Times today.

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.
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 12:02
  #379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,231
Received 50 Likes on 19 Posts
Ah, Sir Jock Stirrup, who happened to be CDS when SDSR10 took place. If anyone knows how to eviscerate the armed forces he should.
Martin the Martian is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2020, 17:03
  #380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,792
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Martin the Martian
Ah, Sir Jock Stirrup, who happened to be CDS when SDSR10 took place. If anyone knows how to eviscerate the armed forces he should.
" Stretched, but not over stretched," IIRC
Haraka is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.