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 25th Aug 2021, 16:08
  #761 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,136
Received 317 Likes on 183 Posts
whatever we have we won't have enough of it for sure
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2021, 09:26
  #762 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,681
Received 23 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC;11099241
[color=#333333
The frustration at the top of the British government with the White House is arguably unlike anything that has been seen since the Falklands War in 1982. [/color]
Slightly strange comment as I recall relations between US and UK were pretty good, albeit behind the scenes initially. The State Dept was less keen, but the Pentagon and WH were supportive.
Davef68 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2021, 06:24
  #763 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,867
Received 1,251 Likes on 583 Posts
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...anks-78smlf5ht

Military hunt for head of the armed forces breaks ranks

Boris Johnson has requested that the defence secretary put forward lower-ranked candidates than normal for the job as head of the armed forces, The Times has learnt.

Senior government sources said the prime minister wanted a “broader pool” of candidates to select from for General Sir Nick Carter’s replacement, even if it meant them skipping a rank.

It is understood Ben Wallace invited three three-star ranks to apply for the role: Vice-Admiral Sir Ben Key, who led the evacuation effort in Afghanistan; Lieutenant General Sir James Hockenhull, chief of defence intelligence; and Air Marshal Gerry Mayhew.

The last two declined but Key, chief of joint operations, has applied for the chief of the defence staff position and is said to have a “good relationship” with Wallace, having impressed him with his work in Afghanistan and on the carrier strike group deployment to the Indo-Pacific region.

If Key were handed the job it would make him the first three-star to get the top job.

Four four-star generals have also been interviewed by Wallace to replace Carter, although it is expected to be a “two-horse race”, sources said.

Several insiders said that General Sir Patrick Sanders, head of strategic command, and Admiral Sir Antony Radakin, the first sea lord, were the most likely choices for the role when Carter steps down at the end of November.

A senior government source said that Radakin was the overall favourite, given Johnson’s focus on the Royal Navy and shipbuilding, and although Sanders could be offered the job of head of the army, there were concerns he might quit if he did not get the top post.

The source said Johnson wanted “honest, clear thinking” and a clearing out of obsolete kit, a changing of working patterns and modernising all the forces “properly” to save money.

Wallace has interviewed the candidates and had dinner with most of them in informal settings, giving them a chance to share their ideas for defence.
ORAC is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2021, 07:32
  #764 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,867
Received 1,251 Likes on 583 Posts
ORAC is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2021, 13:13
  #765 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 0
Received 117 Likes on 23 Posts
The source said Johnson wanted “honest, clear thinking” and a clearing out of obsolete kit, a changing of working patterns and modernising all the forces “properly” to save money.
The second half of the sentence seems at odds with his desire for ‘honest, clear thinking’. To modernize the armed forces having cleared out ‘obsolete kit’ would imply replacing it with new (expensive) kit or does ‘modernize’ mean fewer regulars and tiny numbers of advanced equipment?
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2021, 15:01
  #766 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,219
Received 144 Likes on 60 Posts
If he means obsolescent, then there are even wider implications.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2021, 18:54
  #767 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 2,006
Received 16 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Davef68
Slightly strange comment as I recall relations between US and UK were pretty good, albeit behind the scenes initially. The State Dept was less keen, but the Pentagon and WH were supportive.
Mrs Thatcher thought that the US ought to have come out in overt support of the UK rather sooner than it did; Al Haig was on the receiving end of at least one handbagging about it, as was the President. Although the full record is now released thanks to the UK version being declassified, the Reagan library uploaded a transcript of a telephone call between POTUS and the PM, redacting Mrs T's contribution to the conversation. Most of the document was redacted, with occasional interjections along the lines of, 'Yes, Margaret, but...' and 'But, Margaret...' (ellipses signify the point at which President Reagan ceased to get a word in edgeways...).

There were a few MPs who muttered in the direction of the ambassador that the Americans couldn't be relied upon, which left the poor chap feeling a bit bruised (given that he knew Cap Weinberger had adopted a 'I don't give a damn what State thinks' approach and was sending eye-wateringly large amounts of material support to Ascension.
Archimedes is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2021, 10:18
  #768 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,136
Received 317 Likes on 183 Posts
Problem was that there were several different constituencies in the USA - none of whom thought the FI were important at all.

Some of State were determined to build a non-communist Latin America, some were "Atlanticists", the president didn't know and didn't care, the electorate & the media likewise

It was clear they never got their heads around the importance Argentina and the UK ascribed to the conflict.

Most of the US military sort of backed the UK - they hadn't anywhere near the same interests, history or contacts invested in Argentina
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2021, 16:17
  #769 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,164
Received 46 Likes on 22 Posts
In fairness just before the first reassertion of British sovereignty the US did forcibly remove all the (soon to be) resident Argentinians from the Falklands and destroyed their property and arms. Maybe the US were a little concerned by our lack of attentiveness when we managed to lose it again nearly 150 years later.
Just This Once... is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2021, 16:24
  #770 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,136
Received 317 Likes on 183 Posts
"The source said Johnson wanted “honest, clear thinking” and a clearing out of obsolete kit, a changing of working patterns and modernising all the forces “properly” to save money."

I suspect it's the last bit of the statement that is the most important in Whitehall
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 10:13
  #771 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,867
Received 1,251 Likes on 583 Posts
https://bfpg.co.uk/2021/09/uk-china-relations-2021/



ORAC is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 21:46
  #772 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,867
Received 1,251 Likes on 583 Posts
Now we get the pitch from the second man angling for the top job (post #762)…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...guns-92qq9cx7d

Military ‘needs to focus more on gadgets and coding than guns’

The military needs more “Qs”, the gadget specialist portrayed in the James Bond films, than “007s”, according to the general in charge of cyber and special forces.

General Sir Patrick Sanders, head of strategic command, said that the future of warfare needed to focus much less on conventional capabilities and more on the digital age. Speaking at the opening of the DSEI arms fair, he said: “I have more need of Q than I do 007 or M.”

M is the fictional head of the Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6, as played by Dame Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes in the recent films.

Sanders, who is in the running to replace General Sir Nick Carter as head of the armed forces, said that “equal value and equal status” should be afforded to computer scientists, data engineers and cyberoperators as it is to the “traditional warrior elite”.

He wanted coding and data literacy to be seen as a core skill in the same way as weapon handling. He said the security outlook was “more perilous” than it was two years ago, with the UK facing a twin spectre of “emboldened jihadi terrorists” and a “growing authoritarian zeitgeist” not seen since the 1930s.

China’s military operations have shifted from the concentration of forces to information systems, including the creation of autonomous swarms, Sanders said. If the UK military does not adapt to compete with such technological innovations, then “we will at best become exquisite but irrelevant, and at worst we will die”.

He acknowledged that in order to adapt, soldiers would need to be educated and trained to have the skills required to compete with adversaries such as Russia and China.

“We will have to address the skills gap through attracting far more diverse talent, by inward investment so that coding and data literacy are seen as being as much a core skill as weapon handling.”……

Last edited by ORAC; 14th Sep 2021 at 22:02.
ORAC is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2021, 21:50
  #773 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 77
Posts: 1,367
Received 18 Likes on 11 Posts
So "the pen is mightier than the sword" becomes "a line of code is mightier than (insert weapon of choice)" ? Hmm...
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2021, 08:19
  #774 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC

He wanted coding and data literacy to be seen as a core skill in the same way as weapon handling.
That's me proper fecked then.
Willard Whyte is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2021, 20:25
  #775 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,867
Received 1,251 Likes on 583 Posts
Not sure what to think of this. From a newsletter I have received…

“The RAF has started a transition from the legacy 80 branches and trades to a structure modelled around 'Professions…. This change is part of the transformation into the 'Next Generation Air Force' where we will see just 11 professions across all ranks (commissioned and non-commissioned).

There are a number of reasons behind this change aimed at increasing workforce agility (the range of employment the Service can direct our people to undertake) and flexibility (the ability of our people to request differing employment roles). Each profession (or group of professions) will have a single 2-star head

The RN & Army are also moving across to Professions….. The whole transition to professions is due to end by 2026…

And finally, the RAF is in the process of reviewing the 'Air Command Operating Model'. In the same way that the move to Professions is aiming to get personnel employment and careers fit for the Next Gen Air Force so the Air Command Operating Model aims to get the RAF structures fit for how we operate and fight……”
ORAC is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2021, 04:57
  #776 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,336
Received 380 Likes on 88 Posts
New Professions

It’s funny really because before the big change started I was a pilot. Once the change is complete I’ll still be a pilot.

I know quite alot of people have been gnashing their teeth over it but I just can’t get excited about it.

Maybe it just doesn’t affect me enough.

BV
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2021, 07:23
  #777 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,786
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Just read ORAC's latest. Long overdue I feel. I ventured the suggestion for the creation of parallel sub branch structures akin to "Specialist Aircrew" across a reduced Branch/trade structure number many years ago. It got some support but foundered in the greater scheme of things, including the consequent loss of at least one recently established Senior Officer post for my then Branch ........
Haraka is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2021, 07:59
  #778 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
It’s funny really because before the big change started I was a pilot. Once the change is complete I’ll still be a pilot.

I know quite alot of people have been gnashing their teeth over it but I just can’t get excited about it.

Maybe it just doesn’t affect me enough.

BV
That might just be the problem though, BV, people getting frustrated because it appears to be change for the sake of change.
Foghorn Leghorn is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2021, 10:11
  #779 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,786
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn
That might just be the problem though, BV, people getting frustrated because it appears to be change for the sake of change.
Bearing in mind that the RAF is now less than a third of the size it was,even in the late 60's , yet still retaining many of the old rank/ branch structures?

Last edited by Haraka; 24th Sep 2021 at 10:22.
Haraka is online now  
Old 24th Sep 2021, 21:48
  #780 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Haraka
Bearing in mind that the RAF is now less than a third of the size it was,even in the late 60's , yet still retaining many of the old rank/ branch structures?
Your point is what? It still works absolutely fine and as BV points out that after the change he’s still a pilot. Which begs the question, why do it at all.

The change from Admin, Ops and Eng wings were an absolute farce that yielded nothing tangible whatsoever other than having to pay for new signs.

Most changes such as these are vanity projects of the hierarchy.
Foghorn Leghorn 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.