UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
The following users liked this post:
Regardless of we are fighting a war in Europe or the South China seas you need the ability to transport personnel & equipment. With no more Atlas aircraft ordered this is a huge reduction of our transport fleet.
The RAF has 1 xVoyager & 1 x Atlas based in the Falklands which has cut the number of transports available, how much cheaper would if have been if 3? Hercules had refuelling capability with the ability to conduct maritime patrol around the Falklands? but with the restrictions on RAF refuelling operations created by the Airtanker contract that would never happen.
The RAF has 1 xVoyager & 1 x Atlas based in the Falklands which has cut the number of transports available, how much cheaper would if have been if 3? Hercules had refuelling capability with the ability to conduct maritime patrol around the Falklands? but with the restrictions on RAF refuelling operations created by the Airtanker contract that would never happen.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
how much cheaper would if have been if 3? Hercules had refuelling capability with the ability to conduct maritime patrol around the Falklands?
Maintain the entire spares, engineering, training and other support in the FI for 3 aircraft? Presumably they crew and engineers would have to be permantely based there without a UK based fleet for roulement? Would they have to install a sim for training?
Hmm, but then the FJ crew would need to qualify to AAR from a KC-130 before deployment. Back to a UK fleet again.
Face it, once the decision was made to dispose of the C-130 fleet that was it and Atlas/Voyager is the only solution.
Thread Starter
Lots of jobs outside the armed forces as the media keep telling us - and a walk down any High Street will confirm
Seriously?
Maintain the entire spares, engineering, training and other support in the FI for 3 aircraft? Presumably they crew and engineers would have to be permantely based there without a UK based fleet for roulement? Would they have to install a sim for training?
Hmm, but then the FJ crew would need to qualify to AAR from a KC-130 before deployment. Back to a UK fleet again.
Face it, once the decision was made to dispose of the C-130 fleet that was it and Atlas/Voyager is the only solution.
Maintain the entire spares, engineering, training and other support in the FI for 3 aircraft? Presumably they crew and engineers would have to be permantely based there without a UK based fleet for roulement? Would they have to install a sim for training?
Hmm, but then the FJ crew would need to qualify to AAR from a KC-130 before deployment. Back to a UK fleet again.
Face it, once the decision was made to dispose of the C-130 fleet that was it and Atlas/Voyager is the only solution.
Thread Starter
"Times" today says Sunak is still keen to base a T31 east of Suez. Wallace (who presumably is still sucking his burnt fingers) is reported to have said "only if it is properly supported " (ie more cash please)
By the time that the RN has Type 31’s in service these self serving incompetent charlatans will be long gone from office!
Thread Starter
My beef is that for the last 30+ years whoever is in No. 10 has always pushed out ridiculous suggestions so they can capture the news headline.
Last week Ricci was going to chase up graffiti artists, the week before he was going to build barges for illegals, the week before............
It's all noise and not a clear thought amongst them never mind delivery.
Last week Ricci was going to chase up graffiti artists, the week before he was going to build barges for illegals, the week before............
It's all noise and not a clear thought amongst them never mind delivery.
Well, I tend to agree with all of this
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-b1075031.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-b1075031.html
TThe Ministry of Defence’s equipment plan reveals a “broken system” that could undermine the UK’s ability to contribute to Nato, an influential group of MPs has said.
In a damning report published on Wednesday, the Public Accounts Committee warned that the department’s 10-year plan is “out of date” and fails to reflect lessons emerging from the war in Ukraine a year into the conflict.
The committee noted the MoD’s quick response in assisting Ukraine, but said it was not convinced there was “sufficient urgency” to deliver new capabilities needed by the UK’s own armed forces.
The report outlined doubts about whether the department’s rolling 2023/33 plan is affordable or agile enough to react to new volatilities.
It highlights Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as evidence of the need for a “responsive” programme which ensures the MoD can “quickly develop the capabilities of our armed forces”.
There is an “optimism bias” affecting budget planning in the department, the report said, which ignores the worsening economic environment.
For example, the ministry has not included external cost pressures, including inflation and foreign exchange movements, in its assessment of the plan’s affordability.
The MoD has a forecast deficit of £2.6 billion in the first seven years of the plan.
To remedy this, it relies on having a budget surplus of £5.2 billion in the final three years, MPs saidThe plan’s affordability also assumes a reduction in project costs by £30.4 billion during the next 10 years, which depends on the MoD achieving all planned efficiencies and savings.
If the MoD does not act swiftly to address the fragility of its supply chain, replenish its stocks and modernise its capabilities, the UK may struggle to maintain its essential contribution to Nato
There are no plans for £1.6 billion cost reductions and £3.4 billion efficiency savings, of which the department needs more than £2 billion in the next three years, according to the report.
The report makes six recommendations, including for the department to set out its progress in developing a plan to improve the scale and efficiency of its supply chain.
It also recommends the department urgently reassess the affordability of its equipment procurement and support programmes, assessments of which have so far “ignored the worsening economic” and inflationary pressures.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, deputy chairman of the committee, said: “If the MoD does not act swiftly to address the fragility of its supply chain, replenish its stocks and modernise its capabilities, the UK may struggle to maintain its essential contribution to Nato.
“The 2022/23 equipment plan is already somewhat out of date. It doesn’t reflect the lessons emerging from Ukraine, more than a year in. And every year it’s the same problems – multibillion-pound procurement problems.
“Equipment arrives in service many years late and significantly over budget, and some of it just isn’t arriving at all. The MoD still does not have or seem to be able to attract the skills it needs to deliver the plan.
“Neither taxpayers nor our armed forces are being served well. There needs to be meaningful change of this broken system. The department needs to break from this cycle of costly delay and failure and deliver a fundamental, root-and-branch reform of defence procurement.”
Ministers must ensure our troops have the right kit to fight and fulfil our Nato commitments
John Healey, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, said: “The Conservatives are failing to secure Britain’s national defence for the future.
“This report reinforces the serious questions over critical capabilities and the ability to field a war fighting division which are threatening to undermine the UK’s contribution to the Nato.
“Ministers must ensure our troops have the right kit to fight and fulfil our Nato commitments. Labour would apply a ‘Nato test’ to major defence programmes to ensure our alliance obligations are on track.”
An MoD spokesperson said: “The Public Account Committee’s assessment that our equipment plan does not align with the lessons learnt from the Ukraine conflict is unsubstantiated.
“The lessons we have seen from Ukraine have largely confirmed our 2019 warfighting analysis, which underpinned our subsequent investment decisions, meaning we have not needed to substantially reform our equipment pipeline.
“Nor do we recognise the broken procurement system painted by this report. The department routinely assesses time, cost and risk factors on all projects, and delivers the vast majority on time and in budget, and we have made numerous changes to improve procurement practices where projects have fallen short.
“Some of these projects are decades long, and many of our reforms will take time to deliver results.”
In a damning report published on Wednesday, the Public Accounts Committee warned that the department’s 10-year plan is “out of date” and fails to reflect lessons emerging from the war in Ukraine a year into the conflict.
The committee noted the MoD’s quick response in assisting Ukraine, but said it was not convinced there was “sufficient urgency” to deliver new capabilities needed by the UK’s own armed forces.
The report outlined doubts about whether the department’s rolling 2023/33 plan is affordable or agile enough to react to new volatilities.
It highlights Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as evidence of the need for a “responsive” programme which ensures the MoD can “quickly develop the capabilities of our armed forces”.
There is an “optimism bias” affecting budget planning in the department, the report said, which ignores the worsening economic environment.
For example, the ministry has not included external cost pressures, including inflation and foreign exchange movements, in its assessment of the plan’s affordability.
The MoD has a forecast deficit of £2.6 billion in the first seven years of the plan.
To remedy this, it relies on having a budget surplus of £5.2 billion in the final three years, MPs saidThe plan’s affordability also assumes a reduction in project costs by £30.4 billion during the next 10 years, which depends on the MoD achieving all planned efficiencies and savings.
If the MoD does not act swiftly to address the fragility of its supply chain, replenish its stocks and modernise its capabilities, the UK may struggle to maintain its essential contribution to Nato
There are no plans for £1.6 billion cost reductions and £3.4 billion efficiency savings, of which the department needs more than £2 billion in the next three years, according to the report.
The report makes six recommendations, including for the department to set out its progress in developing a plan to improve the scale and efficiency of its supply chain.
It also recommends the department urgently reassess the affordability of its equipment procurement and support programmes, assessments of which have so far “ignored the worsening economic” and inflationary pressures.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, deputy chairman of the committee, said: “If the MoD does not act swiftly to address the fragility of its supply chain, replenish its stocks and modernise its capabilities, the UK may struggle to maintain its essential contribution to Nato.
“The 2022/23 equipment plan is already somewhat out of date. It doesn’t reflect the lessons emerging from Ukraine, more than a year in. And every year it’s the same problems – multibillion-pound procurement problems.
“Equipment arrives in service many years late and significantly over budget, and some of it just isn’t arriving at all. The MoD still does not have or seem to be able to attract the skills it needs to deliver the plan.
“Neither taxpayers nor our armed forces are being served well. There needs to be meaningful change of this broken system. The department needs to break from this cycle of costly delay and failure and deliver a fundamental, root-and-branch reform of defence procurement.”
Ministers must ensure our troops have the right kit to fight and fulfil our Nato commitments
John Healey, Labour’s shadow defence secretary, said: “The Conservatives are failing to secure Britain’s national defence for the future.
“This report reinforces the serious questions over critical capabilities and the ability to field a war fighting division which are threatening to undermine the UK’s contribution to the Nato.
“Ministers must ensure our troops have the right kit to fight and fulfil our Nato commitments. Labour would apply a ‘Nato test’ to major defence programmes to ensure our alliance obligations are on track.”
An MoD spokesperson said: “The Public Account Committee’s assessment that our equipment plan does not align with the lessons learnt from the Ukraine conflict is unsubstantiated.
“The lessons we have seen from Ukraine have largely confirmed our 2019 warfighting analysis, which underpinned our subsequent investment decisions, meaning we have not needed to substantially reform our equipment pipeline.
“Nor do we recognise the broken procurement system painted by this report. The department routinely assesses time, cost and risk factors on all projects, and delivers the vast majority on time and in budget, and we have made numerous changes to improve procurement practices where projects have fallen short.
“Some of these projects are decades long, and many of our reforms will take time to deliver results.”
This comes across as a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tory members of the PAC.
The Tory Deputy Chair has a go at MoD and procurement, and clearly hasn't a clue what the latter does or what strictures it's under. Or that nobody in 'procurement' has the authority to fix the issues he raises.
What does the Labour Chair think of this? She's not mentioned.
The Labour shadow secretary, who's not on the committee, has a dip at Tory ministers. That's his job. But look at his background, Economic and then Financial secretary to the Treasury. I wonder why he didn't mention the Treasury's key role?
MoD's 'delivers the vast majority on time and in budget' is true, but both it and the committee, over many decades, have steadfastly refused to ask how, and why lessons are not learned. Far too embarrassing.
A normal day at the PAC office.
Thread Starter
The PAC and similar outfits like the NAO have been screaming about MoD procurement and budgeting for 50 years
But nothing changes
But nothing changes
The thrust of the current wailing is low stock levels and slow replenishment. DE&S's response, quite rightly, will be 'What's that got to do with us?'
Long standing MoD policy is 'Not In Time' (that evolved from 'Just In Time'). The report is actually recommending a change in this formal policy, which is thrust upon procurers. But it doesn't say that. It points the finger in completely the wrong direction - and it knows this. Any attempt to revert will take enormous effort and funding. Given WHO introduced the policy, for many years it has been a career killer to even suggest reverting.
The Treasury reply is likely to be, if you want to change, do so within existing resources. No-one on the committee, or the Defence Committee, or the NAO, will admit they've been warned of this many times in formal submissions, but have flatly refused to even mention it. This renders their outpourings meaningless headline grabbing self-aggrandisement. It does nothing for the Armed Forces.
The following 2 users liked this post by tucumseh:
Thread Starter
Of course the lunatic idea that a deferral leads to "savings" is the maddest of them all
The following 2 users liked this post by Asturias56:
In a fit of extreme cynicism I am wondering does:
From time to time I have toyed with researching for a PhD on defence procurement effectiveness but sober up and realise it would be difficult to get any reliable evidence - pinched the title though: On the Psychology of Military Procurement Incompetence.
- NATO Test = to ensure the avoidance of increasing defence funding the incoming Labour government will say bye-bye to any out of area commitments, including ignoring the China and North Korea threats, no SSN deployments to Oz, end of LRG(S), and most T31s and all T32s going the way of T43 and T44. Maybe a few more F35s?
- An MoD spokesperson said: 'The Public Account Committee’s assessment that our equipment plan does not align with the lessons learnt from the Ukraine conflict is unsubstantiated.' = you asked the wrong questions and we hid stuff from the NAO?
- The lessons we have seen from Ukraine have largely confirmed our 2019 warfighting analysis, which underpinned our subsequent investment decisions, meaning we have not needed to substantially reform our equipment pipeline. = we have only looked at what we wanted to?
- 'Nor do we recognise the broken procurement system painted by this report. The department routinely assesses time, cost and risk factors on all projects, and delivers the vast majority on time and in budget, and we have made numerous changes to improve procurement practices where projects have fallen short. Some of these projects are decades long, and many of our reforms will take time to deliver results.' = we have carefully avoided setting any meaningful targets and standards, and anyway we will have all moved on before you can disprove this waffle?
From time to time I have toyed with researching for a PhD on defence procurement effectiveness but sober up and realise it would be difficult to get any reliable evidence - pinched the title though: On the Psychology of Military Procurement Incompetence.
Thread Starter
- NATO Test = to ensure the avoidance of increasing defence funding the incoming Labour government will say bye-bye to any out of area commitments, including ignoring the China and North Korea threats, no SSN deployments to Oz, end of LRG(S), and most T31s and all T32s going the way of T43 and T44. Maybe a few more F35s?
