UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
" was actively engaged, with Cummings in discrediting the Prime Minister."
That's unlikely - they owed their whole promotion & position to him. Its a classic faction fight between two groups for the ear of a weak and indecisive man - check out Barchester Towers - or remember the question asked in 1912 of a very senior Tsarist Minister "Who is the most important man in Russia?" "Simple - the last man the Tsar talked to"
That's unlikely - they owed their whole promotion & position to him. Its a classic faction fight between two groups for the ear of a weak and indecisive man - check out Barchester Towers - or remember the question asked in 1912 of a very senior Tsarist Minister "Who is the most important man in Russia?" "Simple - the last man the Tsar talked to"
FB
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK’s long-awaited Integrated Review into defence, security and foreign policy has been stuck in political limbo since the Treasury postponed a multi-year spending review.This week, the situation surrounding the UK Government’s Integrated Review remained in doubt, with the Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace telling Parliament that the government was still assessing the implications of scrapping the multi-year spending review.
MPs and experts have expressed concern that only funding the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for a year would further postpone long-awaited spending decisions and add to a black hole in the department’s modernisation budget.
Before the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic struck, the UK had planned to publish the Integrated Review alongside a comprehensive spending review which would have set the MOD’s budget for four years, giving it room to make spending decisions.
On Monday, Wallace told MPs: “The government announced on 21 October that they will conduct a one-year spending review for 2021-22. The implications of that decision for the integrated review are currently being considered. The government will provide an update to Parliament once this has been decided.”
Labour’s Shadow Defence Minister John Healey criticised the confusion around the state of the review, saying: “Is it not the regrettable truth that the Chancellor has cut the ground from under the Defence Secretary and our British forces? The Secretary of State rightly said that previous Tory defence reviews have “failed because they were never in step with the spending plans”.
“They were a cover for cuts, which is why our armed forces are nearly 12,000 short of the strength promised in the 2015 review; essential equipment, from new tanks to the new radar system protecting our aircraft carrier, is long overdue; and the defence budget has a £13 billion black hole. A fully-fledged, fully funded strategic defence and security review is needed now more than ever. What does he say about the failure to deliver on that?”
Wallace responded saying that “no one has said yet that the integrated review will be delayed or curtailed” but added that the government was ‘studying’ the implications a one-year spending review would have.
Critical decisions on the future of the UK’s Armed Forces are wrapped up in the Integrated Review, including the future of the British Army’s main battle tank and infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) modernisation programmes. The army is in the final stages of negotiating contracts for the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (CSP) and Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme (LEP).
The British Army introduced Challenger 2 into service in 1998, and Warrior in 1984. Decisions on both upgrade programmes would likely have to be put off if the MOD only received a one-year budget.
MP and Chair of Parliament’s Defence Select Committee Tobias Ellwood told Parliament that a one-year funding settlement would make the ‘integrated review next to meaningless’.
He added: “The Prime Minister gave me a direct assurance that the integrated review would not be delayed. If “global Britain” is an instruction and not a strapline, this review is the road map to how we advance our defence posture to support our foreign policy ambitions.
“Any delay to its publication with its full spending commitments will send a poor signal to the world that we are absolutely serious about re-establishing our global credentials and could prompt questions about our justification to retain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.”
The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have reportedly been pushing the Treasury to commit to a multi-year spending plan for defence.
In a paper published by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) titled ‘A Reckoning Postponed? The Defence Arithmetic of the Integrated Review’, the thinktank’s deputy director-general Malcolm Chalmers wrote that the decision to ‘abandon’ the multi-year spending review had thrown the Integrated Review into ‘disarray.
Chalmer’s added that for defence, this decision would mean ‘key decisions’ on long-term priorities would have to be pushed back to 2021 or 2022.
Chalmer’s added: “A multi-year CSR, combined with a government committed to a radical foreign and defence policy review, would have provided the MoD with an important opportunity to get in front of these issues in relation to these two major programmes, as in other elements of the forward programme.
“Now that the government has reverted to a one-year Spending Review, it will be harder to close on the key decisions that need to be taken. There is a risk that, despite the hard work that has gone into the 2020 Integrated Review, and the MDP before it, the MOD may have to repeat the exercise with a new Integrated Review (or at least a defence element of it) in summer 2021 or 2022. Such an outcome would not be good for defence, and it is likely to be bad value for money for the taxpayer.”
MPs and experts have expressed concern that only funding the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for a year would further postpone long-awaited spending decisions and add to a black hole in the department’s modernisation budget.
Before the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic struck, the UK had planned to publish the Integrated Review alongside a comprehensive spending review which would have set the MOD’s budget for four years, giving it room to make spending decisions.
On Monday, Wallace told MPs: “The government announced on 21 October that they will conduct a one-year spending review for 2021-22. The implications of that decision for the integrated review are currently being considered. The government will provide an update to Parliament once this has been decided.”
Labour’s Shadow Defence Minister John Healey criticised the confusion around the state of the review, saying: “Is it not the regrettable truth that the Chancellor has cut the ground from under the Defence Secretary and our British forces? The Secretary of State rightly said that previous Tory defence reviews have “failed because they were never in step with the spending plans”.
“They were a cover for cuts, which is why our armed forces are nearly 12,000 short of the strength promised in the 2015 review; essential equipment, from new tanks to the new radar system protecting our aircraft carrier, is long overdue; and the defence budget has a £13 billion black hole. A fully-fledged, fully funded strategic defence and security review is needed now more than ever. What does he say about the failure to deliver on that?”
Wallace responded saying that “no one has said yet that the integrated review will be delayed or curtailed” but added that the government was ‘studying’ the implications a one-year spending review would have.
Critical decisions on the future of the UK’s Armed Forces are wrapped up in the Integrated Review, including the future of the British Army’s main battle tank and infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) modernisation programmes. The army is in the final stages of negotiating contracts for the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (CSP) and Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme (LEP).
The British Army introduced Challenger 2 into service in 1998, and Warrior in 1984. Decisions on both upgrade programmes would likely have to be put off if the MOD only received a one-year budget.
MP and Chair of Parliament’s Defence Select Committee Tobias Ellwood told Parliament that a one-year funding settlement would make the ‘integrated review next to meaningless’.
He added: “The Prime Minister gave me a direct assurance that the integrated review would not be delayed. If “global Britain” is an instruction and not a strapline, this review is the road map to how we advance our defence posture to support our foreign policy ambitions.
“Any delay to its publication with its full spending commitments will send a poor signal to the world that we are absolutely serious about re-establishing our global credentials and could prompt questions about our justification to retain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.”
The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have reportedly been pushing the Treasury to commit to a multi-year spending plan for defence.
In a paper published by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) titled ‘A Reckoning Postponed? The Defence Arithmetic of the Integrated Review’, the thinktank’s deputy director-general Malcolm Chalmers wrote that the decision to ‘abandon’ the multi-year spending review had thrown the Integrated Review into ‘disarray.
Chalmer’s added that for defence, this decision would mean ‘key decisions’ on long-term priorities would have to be pushed back to 2021 or 2022.
Chalmer’s added: “A multi-year CSR, combined with a government committed to a radical foreign and defence policy review, would have provided the MoD with an important opportunity to get in front of these issues in relation to these two major programmes, as in other elements of the forward programme.
“Now that the government has reverted to a one-year Spending Review, it will be harder to close on the key decisions that need to be taken. There is a risk that, despite the hard work that has gone into the 2020 Integrated Review, and the MDP before it, the MOD may have to repeat the exercise with a new Integrated Review (or at least a defence element of it) in summer 2021 or 2022. Such an outcome would not be good for defence, and it is likely to be bad value for money for the taxpayer.”
Thread Starter
According to the Times the Govt have made the Treasury agree to a multi year funding arrangement - and an extra £ 14.5 Bn spread over 4 years - about another 5% they say
The defence revue has been pushed back to January 2021
The defence revue has been pushed back to January 2021
Thread Starter
With this Government anything is possible............... 
Is there any entity that provides broad spectrum modeling which might actually be useful for considering national strategy?
It seems, looking from a ways off, that this 'strategic review' is just silly.
Britain does not have a clear sense of whether it is in or out of Europe, what relationship it wishes to retain to its former colonies or even whether to retain a global presence.
Setting a 'strategic review' in that framework seems unlikely to achieve much.
Perhaps the absurd cost of a Trident replacement will focus the discussions, although it seems unlikely. Time honored precedents suggest the numbers will be fudged as necessary for as long as it takes to make it inevitable.
So why does the country have elections?
It seems, looking from a ways off, that this 'strategic review' is just silly.
Britain does not have a clear sense of whether it is in or out of Europe, what relationship it wishes to retain to its former colonies or even whether to retain a global presence.
Setting a 'strategic review' in that framework seems unlikely to achieve much.
Perhaps the absurd cost of a Trident replacement will focus the discussions, although it seems unlikely. Time honored precedents suggest the numbers will be fudged as necessary for as long as it takes to make it inevitable.
So why does the country have elections?
If Covid continues indefinitely and destabilises nation states, there will be "groups" who become intent on redrawing of nations borders along ethnic / religious or other lines............ nope not talking of SNP.
Maybe a prudent move.
It is also likely next war will be fought with drones (or swarms of them) able to hit Mr Smith at number 53 while leave Mr Jones at number 54 alone. Implications that should terrify every Govt because everything is open.
Increase of £16.5bn over 4 years now confirmed by No.10 and story being carried by national media. Apparently Johnson will be making an announcement tomorrow (Thursday). It's also being said that the increase is over and above the existing commitment to a 0.5% real terms annual increase.
Surprise!
Come on now. Who saw this coming?!
UK military to get biggest spending boost in 30 years https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54988870
I don’t think any of us did.
BV
UK military to get biggest spending boost in 30 years https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54988870
I don’t think any of us did.
BV
Come on now. Who saw this coming?!
UK military to get biggest spending boost in 30 years https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54988870
I don’t think any of us did.
BV
UK military to get biggest spending boost in 30 years https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54988870
I don’t think any of us did.
BV
But why have they? The government must know something we don't!
So an already under pressure treasury is getting much less tax. Also needing to spend much more on health and benefits.
They can't have saved much by canning free school meals?
So what is going to lose out ? The obvious answer we all thought was Defence - Maybe they are going to do a Gordon Brown and just keep borrowing!
Range of factors in play, eg: it fits with the PM's view of the UK's place in the world post-Brexit; debt is cheap at present; Johnson doesn't start in a good place in terms of his relationship with Biden, and this sort of move should help; the UK has also slipped in terms of being seen by the US as the best and most reliable ally; it's a useful and timely bone to throw for unhappy Tory MPs; and it can be presented as supporting skilled jobs and the economy at a tricky time.
Range of factors in play, eg: it fits with the PM's view of the UK's place in the world post-Brexit; debt is cheap at present; Johnson doesn't start in a good place in terms of his relationship with Biden, and this sort of move should help; the UK has also slipped in terms of being seen by the US as the best and most reliable ally; it's a useful and timely bone to throw for unhappy Tory MPs; and it can be presented as supporting skilled jobs and the economy at a tricky time.
Boris Johnson pledges £16bn military spending spree
MoD good or bad? - final two paragraphs in the article in The Times:-
MoD good or bad? - final two paragraphs in the article in The Times:-
Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director-general of the Royal United Services Institute, a defence and security think tank, said of the settlement: “It is a remarkable tribute to the persuasive powers of the Ministry of Defence. It’s particularly striking that the government is prepared to make such a significant investment in defence at a time of great fiscal uncertainty.”
Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, said that it risked “rewarding bad management”. “The black hole is not a Treasury problem, it’s an MoD problem — and they need to deal with it,” he said. Programmes may need to be cut and personnel numbers fall to fund the modernisation, he added.
Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, said that it risked “rewarding bad management”. “The black hole is not a Treasury problem, it’s an MoD problem — and they need to deal with it,” he said. Programmes may need to be cut and personnel numbers fall to fund the modernisation, he added.
Thread Starter
Someone was saying they thought they really needed £ 20 Bn extra...... but its good to hear that its a 4 year settlement - takes them to the next election.......
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Not sure if this would have been better on the Carrier thread, however it can be cross-posted in any wishes to do so.
Not sure what Australian and Canadian assets are being referred too, obviously rotary unless they intend to buy the F-35B. Still, the USMC provide those.
CANUKUS, ANZAC, NATO, nine really fit - do we have a suitable acronym or do we need a new one?
As to where the overseas base ma6 be, Singapore has been mooted (they built a super carrier capable pier back around 2000 hoping to persuade the USN to base one there, but all they’ve ever done is make port visits*), any other rumours?
And of course the elephant in the room - not a peep about about a next tranche of F-35Bs. All the money to be spent within the UK on ship building?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/n...pree-7p9knnpvm
Navy is big winner in Johnson’s £16bn defence spending spree
......The biggest winner will be the Royal Navy after the prime minister set out plans for the service to take on a bigger role. He confirmed that Britain will get eight Type-26 frigates, sophisticated anti-submarine ships, as well as five Type-31 frigates, which are cheaper all-purpose warships.
New fleet support ships to carry food and ammunition in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will also be built, along with multi-role research vessels. The various projects confirmed will be a boon to shipbuilders and are expected to support up to 10,000 jobs.
The blueprint will be a boost to the Union too as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have a significant proportion of the UK’s shipyards and linked industries. The government said that the blueprint would secure “jobs, prosperity, security and the Union”.
Mr Johnson said that the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth would be launched on its first carrier strike force operation next year, and will sail to the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and east Asia. HMS Prince of Wales is up to 18 months behind in its timetable.
In a sign that Britain will seek to boost international co-operation, Australian and Canadian personnel and assets are expected to be invited to operate from one of the carriers.
Proposals are being considered for one of the carriers to be permanently stationed either in the Middle East or further east in the southern hemisphere, it is understood. A military source said that the focus on the Royal Navy was “a paradigm shift”, adding: “Boris Johnson has refocused defence to its historic maritime axis.”.....
* https://www.marinelink.com/news/sing...er-docks318426
Not sure what Australian and Canadian assets are being referred too, obviously rotary unless they intend to buy the F-35B. Still, the USMC provide those.
CANUKUS, ANZAC, NATO, nine really fit - do we have a suitable acronym or do we need a new one?
As to where the overseas base ma6 be, Singapore has been mooted (they built a super carrier capable pier back around 2000 hoping to persuade the USN to base one there, but all they’ve ever done is make port visits*), any other rumours?
And of course the elephant in the room - not a peep about about a next tranche of F-35Bs. All the money to be spent within the UK on ship building?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/n...pree-7p9knnpvm
Navy is big winner in Johnson’s £16bn defence spending spree
......The biggest winner will be the Royal Navy after the prime minister set out plans for the service to take on a bigger role. He confirmed that Britain will get eight Type-26 frigates, sophisticated anti-submarine ships, as well as five Type-31 frigates, which are cheaper all-purpose warships.
New fleet support ships to carry food and ammunition in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will also be built, along with multi-role research vessels. The various projects confirmed will be a boon to shipbuilders and are expected to support up to 10,000 jobs.
The blueprint will be a boost to the Union too as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have a significant proportion of the UK’s shipyards and linked industries. The government said that the blueprint would secure “jobs, prosperity, security and the Union”.
Mr Johnson said that the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth would be launched on its first carrier strike force operation next year, and will sail to the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and east Asia. HMS Prince of Wales is up to 18 months behind in its timetable.
In a sign that Britain will seek to boost international co-operation, Australian and Canadian personnel and assets are expected to be invited to operate from one of the carriers.
Proposals are being considered for one of the carriers to be permanently stationed either in the Middle East or further east in the southern hemisphere, it is understood. A military source said that the focus on the Royal Navy was “a paradigm shift”, adding: “Boris Johnson has refocused defence to its historic maritime axis.”.....
* https://www.marinelink.com/news/sing...er-docks318426
Thread Starter
Times today ith mixed messages
editorial welcomes the cash injection but says it would be good to have a strategy in place first AND how will it be paid for?
Defence correspondent - see ORAC above
editorial welcomes the cash injection but says it would be good to have a strategy in place first AND how will it be paid for?
Defence correspondent - see ORAC above
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Paphos, 8101
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][But why have they? The government must know something we don't!/QUOTE]
I would say maybe you have hit the nail on the head here. I don't know anymore than you, but the world is looking particularly dangerous if you look east. Maybe the lessons of the 1930s and 1980s have been learnt.
I would say maybe you have hit the nail on the head here. I don't know anymore than you, but the world is looking particularly dangerous if you look east. Maybe the lessons of the 1930s and 1980s have been learnt.
Govt is working on basis that nothing will ever need to be paid for. Borrow from ourselves so it is not really borrowing. Deflate the economy so they don't owe anything.
Thread Starter
" the world is looking particularly dangerous if you look east. Maybe the lessons of the 1930s and 1980s have been learnt."
I hope they remember the lesson about sending a couple of large warships to Singapore without understanding the power of the opposition.................
I hope they remember the lesson about sending a couple of large warships to Singapore without understanding the power of the opposition.................