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 5th Dec 2019, 06:16
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,811
Two Tunnels

If you care to read my whole post you will find that I addressed your concerns.

Yes I am a FJ pilot. As a result that is all I can really talk about with any authority. I have no idea how morale and manning is in other branches.

Instead of being indignant maybe you could just comment on the idea.

BV
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 5th Dec 2019, 06:18
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,386
Originally Posted by TwoTunnels View Post
Bob Viking...

"Most of the flying (both operationally and locally) is done by JO pilots. They are the ones who are keeping the ‘Air’ in the name of the organisation."

No other aircrew in the RAF then?... I take it you're a pointy driver then...
The RAF has a requirement for 1280 JO pilots, 640 sqn ldr/wg cdr pilots (around half of whom are in staff roles), 340 WSOs at wg cdr and below and 810 NCA of all ranks. So I take it you don't comprehend the difference between 'most' and 'all'...
Easy Street is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2019, 07:43
  #63 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 1,953
"Russia is definitely a threat, no doubt. Are they credible, not really."

Spending more than they have for a long time but still not a lot - especially when spread over such a large area and 3 oceans

An awful lot of their kit is 30+ years old and they have a lot of problems keeping anything working - e.g their aircraft carrier.............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2019, 12:15
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 250
Originally Posted by heights good View Post
Russia is definitely a threat, no doubt.

Are they credible, not really.
Are they likely to do anything significant, I REALLY doubt it.
Am I worried about them, not in the slightest.

Ask me about the big country to the South of Russia....

Different league and will be the single biggest threat to the entire world and a true existential threat to the West within the next 2 decades. They scare me a LOT!
The very big country south of Russia is indeed a far more significant threat.
Russia is an ally of that nation. Russia supplies their military. Any war in Iran would involve Russia.
I also don't believe that Mr. Putin is particularly moral, therefore it's reasonable to assume any war with Russia involved could escalate to nuclear warfare, or at the very least, we could have cruise missiles fired at us with conventional warheads. Therefore the UK needs to make sure its anti-missile defences are top of the line.
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2019, 12:34
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Ibstock
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
"Russia is definitely a threat, no doubt. Are they credible, not really."

Spending more than they have for a long time but still not a lot - especially when spread over such a large area and 3 oceans

An awful lot of their kit is 30+ years old and they have a lot of problems keeping anything working - e.g their aircraft carrier.............

How far out of port do our carriers get before they are sunk? Rather than talking nonsense you should maybe research the Russian navy, and how it has upgraded its 30 year old ships and submarines.
H I Sutton - Covert Shores
They are more than just a credible threat, and they are there...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...atlantic-92336

What if China were to divert US assets from EUrope to the Pacific, do we continue to ‘high 5’ or do we start saving money by teaching Russian as a second language?

Its a a good job that we have a healthy ratio in the skies, because at sea maybe that is not the case; have a good research of the first link using google as well, before you sit too comfortably.
Countdown begins is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2019, 13:14
  #66 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 1,953
Russia currently is operating around 3 "Borey" SSBN + 1 Typhoon + 7 Deltas - the Deltas are between 30 & 40 years old.

They have 10 Akulas SSN's which are approx 30 years old plus 1 Yasen which is about 6 years old

Also some SSK's and , old Oscars etc

these are split across 3 oceans

It's still a meaningful force but it's about the same as the UK plus France put together - and they are in one ocean.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2019, 13:22
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Ibstock
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Russia currently is operating around 3 "Borey" SSBN + 1 Typhoon + 7 Deltas - the Deltas are between 30 & 40 years old.

They have 10 Akulas SSN's which are approx 30 years old plus 1 Yasen which is about 6 years old

Also some SSK's and , old Oscars etc

these are split across 3 oceans

It's still a meaningful force but it's about the same as the UK plus France put together - and they are in one ocean.
Try again, the article mentions Sierra class I believe. So in 30 years they just run them into the ground, they don’t refit and they don’t do interim upgrades?
You should delve into it, as clearly you haven’t bothered.
What about Belgorod?
What are they doing with the other Typhoons, what about Poseidon?
Either you didn’t go over the site at all, you aren’t interested or are trolling.
Countdown begins is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2019, 13:40
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Countdown begins View Post



How far out of port do our carriers get before they are sunk? Rather than talking nonsense you should maybe research the Russian navy, and how it has upgraded its 30 year old ships and submarines.
H I Sutton - Covert Shores
They are more than just a credible threat, and they are there...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...atlantic-92336

What if China were to divert US assets from EUrope to the Pacific, do we continue to ‘high 5’ or do we start saving money by teaching Russian as a second language?

Its a a good job that we have a healthy ratio in the skies, because at sea maybe that is not the case; have a good research of the first link using google as well, before you sit too comfortably.
Versus NATO.....
heights good is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2019, 14:21
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Ibstock
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by heights good View Post


Versus NATO.....
And the bit about US attention diverted? You think there’s a match against Russia?
ofcourse, this is just a theoretical exercise, they would never coordinate a multi theatre split and NATO is strong enough. All them spanking German subs that are good to go.. and all that.

Last edited by Countdown begins; 5th Dec 2019 at 14:42.
Countdown begins is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2019, 23:10
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 595
Anyone else remember “Front Line First” ?
Fonsini is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2019, 23:51
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 773
Is it sensible to have a 'strategic defense review' when the political framework is totally in flux? It is difficult to believe that anyone can develop an effective strategy when the goals are unspecified.
etudiant is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2019, 06:29
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: York
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Fonsini View Post
Anyone else remember “Front Line First” ?
rapidly blunted by “Soldier First”............
dctyke is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2019, 08:12
  #73 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 1,953
"Is it sensible to have a 'strategic defense review'

Good question . One poster above suggested they were becoming institutionalised on a 5 year cycle which could be worrying. These days replacement kit seems to run on a 10-20 year cycle of identify- design- build- service for anything substantial - in that time you could 3-4 reviews any of which may change the framework/strategy.

Perhaps the Civil Service like the routine - that way you can always have a core of people working on the next one whether it is needed or not.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2019, 19:43
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,386
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
"Is it sensible to have a 'strategic defense review'

Good question . One poster above suggested they were becoming institutionalised on a 5 year cycle which could be worrying. These days replacement kit seems to run on a 10-20 year cycle of identify- design- build- service for anything substantial - in that time you could 3-4 reviews any of which may change the framework/strategy.

Perhaps the Civil Service like the routine - that way you can always have a core of people working on the next one whether it is needed or not.
In practice, the people who work on SDSRs spend the time between them keeping strategy under continual review, as it should always be. The 2015 SDSR was quickly overtaken by Brexit, Trump, and deteriorating relations with Russia. We don’t carry on as if nothing changes until the next review. I think you are really referring to the equipment plan, which is only one component of a SDSR.

Equipment plan reviews are an opportunity to ask the difficult questions like “is programme ‘x’ still going to deliver what we need in ‘y’ years’ time?”. Again these questions are asked more frequently during spending reviews, but the SDSR is the chance to take stock across the whole of Defence. As for SDSRs interfering with programme lifecycles, my simple response is “sunk cost fallacy”. If it’s no longer expected to be relevant or offer good value for future expenditure, bin it immediately irrespective of prior investment. (I recognise that politics often militates against this but civil servants are duty-bound to offer ministers the most economically-sound options). It’s a good thing we now question ourselves on this more often; you can blame the 12-year absence of comprehensive reviews after 1998 for the bloat and drift that compelled such over-correction in 2010.

Last edited by Easy Street; 6th Dec 2019 at 19:53.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2019, 00:07
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 773
Originally Posted by Easy Street View Post


In practice, the people who work on SDSRs spend the time between them keeping strategy under continual review, as it should always be. The 2015 SDSR was quickly overtaken by Brexit, Trump, and deteriorating relations with Russia. We don’t carry on as if nothing changes until the next review. I think you are really referring to the equipment plan, which is only one component of a SDSR.

Equipment plan reviews are an opportunity to ask the difficult questions like “is programme ‘x’ still going to deliver what we need in ‘y’ years’ time?”. Again these questions are asked more frequently during spending reviews, but the SDSR is the chance to take stock across the whole of Defence. As for SDSRs interfering with programme lifecycles, my simple response is “sunk cost fallacy”. If it’s no longer expected to be relevant or offer good value for future expenditure, bin it immediately irrespective of prior investment. (I recognise that politics often militates against this but civil servants are duty-bound to offer ministers the most economically-sound options). It’s a good thing we now question ourselves on this more often; you can blame the 12-year absence of comprehensive reviews after 1998 for the bloat and drift that compelled such over-correction in 2010.
That is exactly the issue, the people doing the review are in an ongoing process, which makes it very difficult to recognize that the world has changed fundamentally.
Reality today is that managing China is the key issue and that Russia is a potential ally and asset in that task, rather than a liability. That is not the existing paradigm, so the ongoing strategy reviews are not very useful, as they still run on mindsets dating back to Soviet days.
etudiant is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2019, 01:09
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,386
Originally Posted by etudiant View Post
That is exactly the issue, the people doing the review are in an ongoing process, which makes it very difficult to recognize that the world has changed fundamentally.
Reality today is that managing China is the key issue and that Russia is a potential ally and asset in that task, rather than a liability. That is not the existing paradigm, so the ongoing strategy reviews are not very useful, as they still run on mindsets dating back to Soviet days.
You’re talking about higher levels: national security strategy (Cabinet Office) and foreign policy (FCO). The MOD and especially the services have little influence in those circles, but FWIW I agree that our grand strategy leaves much to be desired. SDSRs are about how the higher-level stuff is actually implemented. Trouble is, when the higher-level objectives are so woolly (eg “project our influence”) it leaves plenty of scope for factional wrangling lower down the food chain.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2019, 06:44
  #77 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 1,953
Thank you for the thoughtful responses.

No doubt one option is to try and retain maximum flexibility in all the forces but that is generally expensive and is at variance with the political wish for simple answers
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2019, 17:25
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Missing the point

Despite a lot of sensible, if misdirected, opinion on here, you all seem to have a peculiarly selfish focus.

The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.

You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.

The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.

Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.

The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.

Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.
Warren Peace is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2019, 21:46
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,329
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
Despite a lot of sensible, if misdirected, opinion on here, you all seem to have a peculiarly selfish focus.

The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.

You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.

The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.

Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.

The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.

Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.
The point you're making is now showing signs of age. Ever since the 1990s/end of the Cold War, we've had various hard headed evaluations telling us that the threat has changed, that defence has to be re-shaped, re-thought to meet the wars of tomorrow etc. Then we had operations (for better or worse, wrong or right) in Kosovo, Sierre Leone, Gulf 2, Libya and recently to eradicate Isis' operating base/strong hold in Syria and Northern Iraq, which has been successful by all accounts.

None of these operations went ahead without the principal involvement of Typhoons, Tornados, infantry in the case of Sierre, etc. The chap who met his end at the hands of the met last week, wasn't an indication of a national security/defence threat. He was an example of the loop holes in sentencing policy. It is still within the remit of the Police to deal with such matters. The Armed Forces exist to confront a larger extensive, more varied and comprehensive threat. It is certainly the case that there are now additional strands to the spectrum but it isn't the case that defence concerns have wholly transitioned, or are transitioning to a narrow world of cyber threats and suicide bombers. These are additional concerns, but much for now, are contained by the anti-terrorist squad and GCHQ. How would you redress the balance as you see it? Would even a single squadron of F-35s be redundant? Would we fair far better simply pouring all resources into countering cyber threats, intercepting Russian attempts to interfere with elections, monitoring extremists and vastly increasing the budget for CID and the prison system. Would this be comprehensive enough and leave nothing else to chance?

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2019, 21:57
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 226
What amazing insight and perception you have warren! You're right the Red Arrows contribued absolutely nothing to helping prevent that latest terror attack on London Bridge. On that basis let's get them disbanded asap, and we funnel all the gazillions they cost us into counter terrorism. Job done, medals all round and tea and biscuits on top.
andrewn is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.