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 7th Dec 2019, 22:52
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Transient
Posts: 7
Let's have the army on the streets with a shoot to kill policy then Finningly boy.
Douglas Bahada is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2019, 23:25
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 421
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.
Without risking a stretch in Colchester, you are WAY WAY off the mark and appear to be demonstrating that you have not been 'read into' any operations in the last 15 yrs.
heights good is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2019, 23:36
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 421
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.
I would also add, the threat today, both realised and potential, is at the lowest point in real terms than it has been in the last 50 yrs. Although the attacks in London are truly tragic and I wish they could all be stopped, in the big scheme of things from the IRAs heyday 30 yrs ago, London is a lot safer place.

The 24 hour news cycle, social media and irresponsible journalism have caused the nation to live in fear of a threat which is miniscule, albeit tragic when it does happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Britain#1970s

I would argue the single greatest threat to the UK today is 5G being installed which is giving non-friendly nations access to the ENTIRE countries data networks. Most people have no comprehension of what 5G is, it is NOT a mobile phone network, it is a data network that EVERYTHING can communicate with from mobile phones, computers, smart devices, your vehicle, credit cards etc. Think WiFi, but EVERYWHERE. If you would like some sleepless nights then I recommend this video. It's truly terrifying!

heights good is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2019, 07:49
  #84 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 1,907
I suppose we should be so frightened about Chinese 5G that we adopt American 5G instead - TBH I suspect the Chinese will have a lot harder job making anything useful out of my comms than the USA or GCHQ

Warren Peace's point is fatally flawed - even if we had everyone in the current UK Armed Forces redeployed against the "terrorist threat" it wouldn't stop things like the latest London Bridge shooting. It lasted 5 minutes - 300 seconds - and started inside a "private" building. Unless you have everyone in the UK guarded close up 24/7 by an armed guard (and the records show that they have to be guarded in case they go crazy and then the guards guards mighty go...) I can't see how you can do any better than they did last week.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2019, 12:16
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,311
Originally Posted by Douglas Bahada View Post
Let's have the army on the streets with a shoot to kill policy then Finningly boy.
I imagine your caustic wit is aimed at Warren and not me? Only tis is the kind of flaw I've observed.

FB

Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2019, 14:22
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy View Post
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.
FB
How is success measured in the Ops you listed above? Was there a stated aim prior to the UK's involvement that it would be declared a success when those aims were achieved?
The Nip is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2019, 15:16
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 584
In terms of defense spending and planning I do find myself wondering what our collective response would be if the Russians invaded let’s say...Estonia.

Would NATO go to war ?

Until you determine what threats exist and what your planned response to those threats would be (the scenario books) I don’t know how you can effectively allocate spending. We used to have a very clear remit of forward basing US strike aircraft and securing the GIUK gap for anti-submarine operations, now we seem to be more interested in force projection around the world with nuclear subs and carrier strike groups that we can ill-afford. I’m not convinced that is the best option for us.
Fonsini is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2019, 15:48
  #88 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 1,907
Unfortunately expecting Politicians to face up to realities is almost impossible - it's only the drip drip drip of cash that eventually brings in some sense

The time they are forced to choose between (say) protecting pensions and (say) buying another 50 F-35's is when reality bites
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2019, 11:29
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,180
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy View Post
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.

FB
Wasn't there something going on in Afghanistan for a while?

How is success measured in the Ops you listed above? Was there a stated aim prior to the UK's involvement that it would be declared a success when those aims were achieved?
A fair point, but not the fault of those who went. And having those assets allowed us at least to take part (again, rightly or wrongly, for better or worse). Was it Rod Stewart who trilled "Ain't it better to lose in love, than to never love at all?". Seems faintly apt...
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2019, 12:03
  #90 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 1,907
"Times" this morning in their post -election section says that on Defence the Tories will want to spend more money on cyber stuff and satellites and that "hard decisions" will be required on some items..................
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2019, 16:43
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 421
Question

Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
"Times" this morning in their post -election section says that on Defence the Tories will want to spend more money on cyber stuff and satellites and that "hard decisions" will be required on some items..................
Perhaps the Huawei 5G network will be turned off as part of that....
heights good is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2019, 18:18
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 250
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
"Times" this morning in their post -election section says that on Defence the Tories will want to spend more money on cyber stuff and satellites and that "hard decisions" will be required on some items..................
Investing heavily in cyber seems like a sensible idea, considering Russia's election interference record as of late.

Speaking of that... let's hope BoJo publishes that report very soon.
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2019, 19:05
  #93 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 73
Posts: 3,295
Investing heavily in cyber seems like a sensible idea, considering Russia's election interference record as of late.

Speaking of that... let's hope BoJo publishes that report very soon.
And the one about yesterday perhaps?
Herod is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2019, 06:08
  #94 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,710
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...cash-2gsdzs9v5

Boris Johnson to take aim at MoD over wasted cash


Boris Johnson’s most senior aide is to overhaul the way the Ministry of Defence spends billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in a move expected to alarm military chiefs and mandarins.

Dominic Cummings, regarded as a key architect of the prime minister’s election victory, will tackle military procurement as a priority for next year, allies have said. He is expected to audit recent purchases and review the development of costly military equipment, having previously described MoD procurement as “disastrous”. The aide has scorned “mediocre” officials and alleged corruption within the system. The acquisition of two aircraft carriers, at a cost of £6.2 billion, has been a specific focus of his concern.

One cabinet minister sought yesterday to play down the significance of Mr Cummings’s involvement in the defence review, but the revelation is likely to cause anxiety among senior military figures. A defence source said last night that although there was agreement that the processes needed reform, the armed forces would be concerned by Mr Cummings taking a leading role. “We have an early 20th-century system for a 21st-century world,” the insider said. “It requires review, but that should be carried out by people with expertise in procurement rather than in politics.”

Procurement will be one pillar of the defence and foreign policy review that the prime minister announced during the general election campaign. Mr Johnson signalled that it would be the most comprehensive evaluation since the Cold War of Britain’s defence capabilities and emphasised the need for a technological upgrade of the armed forces........

A second key figure in the review has also been named. John Bew, a foreign policy expert who joined the No 10 policy unit this year, will report on Britain’s place in the world.

Mr Johnson’s robust rhetoric about the review has raised eyebrows among mandarins, and the involvement of Mr Cummings, who has sketched out some views on defence in a private blog, is likely to be met with trepidation. In a post published in March, before he joined the government, the former Vote Leave campaign director hit out at the programme to build the carriers, the second of which was commissioned last week. Calling the scheme a “farce”, he added that it “has continued to squander billions of pounds, enriching some of the worst corporate looters and corrupting public life via the revolving door of officials/lobbyists”. Scrutiny by MPs had been “contemptible”, he said, adding that the vessels “cannot be sent to a serious war against a serious enemy”.

Advocates of the carriers reject concerns about their vulnerability, insisting that they are crucial to Britain’s projection of hard power. Mr Cummings’s involvement in the defence review is likely to bring their future into question and revive rumours, recently dismissed by Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, that at least one carrier could be sold to an ally or put into storage.

The Downing Street chief adviser has also written in support of greater investment in high-risk, high-impact research and development in science and technology. He is thought to have been behind the inclusion in the Tory manifesto of a pledge to create Britain’s first space command and the vow to boost public spending on research into space, computing, robotics and AI — all of which have crucial military, as well as civilian, functions. In his March blog he also pinpointed the military potential of drone swarms and AI robots. His posts praise the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), which claimed credit for inventing an early version of the internet and GPS. Mr Johnson has pledged to create a funding agency modelled on Darpa.

The civil service is also likely to scrutinise the work of Professor Bew for clues as to his foreign policy views. An Atlanticist and follower of Henry Kissinger, he has criticised the EU’s drive to uncouple from Washington, arguing that it has undermined the cohesiveness of Nato.

The defence review was welcomed by Michael Clarke, a former director of the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think tank. “A review of MoD procurement processes is long overdue,” he said. “Nobody in the government, the MoD or the armed forces thinks the present arrangements are satisfactory.

“But good luck with that,” he added. “Numerous attempts at reorganisation in recent decades have failed. Despite small improvements, the fundamentals of the system are no different now from 30 years ago.”......





ORAC is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2019, 09:03
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Posts: 377
Wait a minute, I thought that Corbyn was the threat for defence in this country. I mean, that's what the experts here were telling me...
Mil-26Man is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2019, 10:06
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 4DME
Posts: 1,962
When do we think Boris will buy some Gulf 6s or similar for 32 Squadron. He obviously likes jetting around if we can go by his electioneering.
N707ZS is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2019, 10:35
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,612
The time they are forced to choose between (say) protecting pensions and (say) buying another 50 F-35's is when reality bites

Whose Pensions?
SASless is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2019, 11:09
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Here 'n' there!
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by Mil-26Man View Post
Wait a minute, I thought that Corbyn was the threat for defence in this country. I mean, that's what the experts here were telling me...
......well, a Defence Review under Johnson will lead to angst and surprises no doubt, but one under Corbyn? “Even more unpredictable” would be a polite way to describe that!

Interesting times ahead without doubt.....
Hot 'n' High is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2019, 08:13
  #99 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 1,907
We'll never find ou t tho I suspect it wouldn't have been as bad as people think - a lot of jobs to protect .

Someone in today's Times pointing out that a meaningful SDR requires the politicians to be realistic about what they want.............. now there IS an optimist............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2019, 18:43
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 250
If there was an 'angry' reaction option, I'd have clicked it on ORAC's post.

This is very alarming, indeed. I am a philosophical conservative, something the Party as a whole is not - the need for strong security is always one of my decision makers when voting.
I hope Cummings is kept clear of any such Defence procurement review, this is for specialists, not political analysts.
BVRAAM 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.