UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
[QUOTE=NutLoose;11439285]
You will love this report, and it’s pretty damning. Something you often mention.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-...nt-experience/
Thank you.
I've also mentioned a couple of truisms in defence procurement.
You can always tell a programme manager's background by what he omits from the contract, or later waives to meet time or cost. Practicioners who have worked backwards through the acquisition (not just procurement) cycle seldom omit anything of importance. Whereas the inexperienced will omit things like support, training, functional safety, and so on.
Airworthiness management is the same. If someone managing the Attaining of airworthiness has not first done Continuing and then Maintaining, then he is severely limited because he has no experience of solving the problems that arise, so tends not to avoid the avoidable. The current regulatory set focuses almost entirely on Continuing, to the almost total exclusion of the higher activity of Maintaining.
You will love this report, and it’s pretty damning. Something you often mention.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-...nt-experience/
I've also mentioned a couple of truisms in defence procurement.
You can always tell a programme manager's background by what he omits from the contract, or later waives to meet time or cost. Practicioners who have worked backwards through the acquisition (not just procurement) cycle seldom omit anything of importance. Whereas the inexperienced will omit things like support, training, functional safety, and so on.
Airworthiness management is the same. If someone managing the Attaining of airworthiness has not first done Continuing and then Maintaining, then he is severely limited because he has no experience of solving the problems that arise, so tends not to avoid the avoidable. The current regulatory set focuses almost entirely on Continuing, to the almost total exclusion of the higher activity of Maintaining.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
"Serious maths issue with all that! There is no “cut of 20,000 or 30% as the current strength is around 73,000 if that."
Tusa is a journo - maths not required - but its still a forecast cut which ever way you look at it.
The issue really is the continued salami slicing rather than deciding to scrap certain tasks for good
Tusa is a journo - maths not required - but its still a forecast cut which ever way you look at it.
The issue really is the continued salami slicing rather than deciding to scrap certain tasks for good
"Serious maths issue with all that! There is no “cut of 20,000 or 30% as the current strength is around 73,000 if that."
Tusa is a journo - maths not required - but its still a forecast cut which ever way you look at it.
The issue really is the continued salami slicing rather than deciding to scrap certain tasks for good
Tusa is a journo - maths not required - but its still a forecast cut which ever way you look at it.
The issue really is the continued salami slicing rather than deciding to scrap certain tasks for good
The following users liked this post:
Offhand, I'd say that - if correct - cuts on that scale to Percy probably indicate removal of tasks (or at least reduction to lowest feasible) for the army, while ensuring proper enabling functions (eg Artillery, GBAD, CSS) are reconstituted so you have a usable (though perhaps not sustainable beyond a certain duration) all-arms heavy force and an associated light force, built around 16AA. If they're really sensible, they'll provide an uplift in manpower numbers for the RN and RAF as well.
Thread Starter
You'd really expect it to the other way round given events in E Europe wouldn't you? Maybe the Army is just too small to make a difference....................... wasn't it Bismark in teh lat e 19th Century who said he'd send a policeman to arrest the British Army if it landed in Prussia
You'd really expect it to the other way round given events in E Europe wouldn't you? Maybe the Army is just too small to make a difference....................... wasn't it Bismark in teh lat e 19th Century who said he'd send a policeman to arrest the British Army if it landed in Prussia
Thread Starter
History would suggest that West & C Europe is were the critical fighting takes place
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
A challenging read - RN on verge of dropping to just 10 frigates - but is this realism given poor material state of ancient T23s?
https://www.navylookout.com/hms-west...vice-in-doubt/
HMS Westminster refit suspended and her return to service in doubt
https://www.navylookout.com/hms-west...vice-in-doubt/
HMS Westminster refit suspended and her return to service in doubt
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Tecumseh, I think you’ll appreciate this thread, mainly focused on the use/death of MIL-STD-499A MILITARY STANDARD: SYSTEM ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT (USAF)….
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...836092929.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...836092929.html
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
“there are some… that say that air dominance is not critical. And that what matters is owning key terrain [and] an artillery slugfest. I disagree. If anything this [shows] protracted brutality of a conflict where neither side has gained air dominance”
“Maj Purbrick pointed out that some Army units are already operating relatively sophisticated and expensive UAS systems. “The Queen’s Dragoon Guards are fresh back from Mali,” he explained. “They took around 30 UAVs with them and we came back to two!”
“Maj Purbrick pointed out that some Army units are already operating relatively sophisticated and expensive UAS systems. “The Queen’s Dragoon Guards are fresh back from Mali,” he explained. “They took around 30 UAVs with them and we came back to two!”
Strategically, the point is exactly the one the Minister makes: fundamentally, we do not want to get into the kind of fight that we see in Ukraine today—that horribly attritional trench warfare that we thought was a thing of the past. Part of the reason why the campaign is unfolding in that way is that neither side has been able to exercise air superiority. That gives us a glimpse of the challenges of gaining air superiority in a future fight, and we have to be able to demonstrate that we can do that. I expect that in future we will have to be more prepared than we have been for the last 20 years to fight for control of the air. That will probably be limited—limited in time and limited in geography—but without it you cannot deliver any kind of military effect, either from the air or on the ground.
17 May 2023 - Aviation Procurement - Oral evidence to HoC Defence Committee
17 May 2023 - Aviation Procurement - Oral evidence to HoC Defence Committee
Thread Starter
ACM Knighton seems to think that you can choose what sort of war you fight - but it takes two to tango.
There's usually a conflict going on somewhere. Wherever and whatever the current conflict is, it is typically accompanied by a chorus of voices saying this is what we should focus our defence posture on. Until the next and different conflict happens and the chorus shifts accordingly. Question is how and where can the UK best contribute. Maybe a focused contribution to central Europe, but others are best placed to shoulder the main burden on that and the likes of Poland seem to be stepping up to the plate accordingly. UK best focus on other strengths and domains, as others have mentioned.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Read some good stuff from James Hasik about the evolution of attlefield helicopters post Ukraine
https://www.jameshasik.com/files/on-...t-20230526.pdf
On Rotorcraft and the Russo-Ukrainian War
https://www.jameshasik.com/files/on-...t-20230526.pdf
On Rotorcraft and the Russo-Ukrainian War
Thread Starter
"As Jack Watling and Nick Reynolds of RUSI reported earlier this month, the longes tranged shoot-down of the war was a Russian victory at 150 kilometers against a Ukrainian aircraft flying at less than 50 feet"
Ouch - that's worrying.
Ouch - that's worrying.
Asturias, I don't think he was saying we could pick our conflicts; what I thought when I heard the (now) CAS say this was he was laying down a marker saying HMG needs to ensure that the UK armed forces have the equipment necessary to gain tactical air superiority to cover operations, whatever and wherever those may be, that operations where neither side can do so will turn in to a slugfest. (In the later case in IMO the UK would run out of men and materiel very quickly.)
In makes sense to me that in any peer or near peer conflict, the virtual impunity in the air that has characterised UK ops in the last few decades has lulled politicians into believing AD, SEAD, AEW et al are an expensive luxury that can be procured in small numbers would lead to disastrous consequences if the capability gaps are not addressed soon. CAS was pointing out one that of the main lessons from Ukraine is that the threats and hence need for a robust air superiority capability are real. I can't see how UCAVs pootling at 170 - 300 kts will be effective for long in a hostile environment but that's a whole other debate.
In makes sense to me that in any peer or near peer conflict, the virtual impunity in the air that has characterised UK ops in the last few decades has lulled politicians into believing AD, SEAD, AEW et al are an expensive luxury that can be procured in small numbers would lead to disastrous consequences if the capability gaps are not addressed soon. CAS was pointing out one that of the main lessons from Ukraine is that the threats and hence need for a robust air superiority capability are real. I can't see how UCAVs pootling at 170 - 300 kts will be effective for long in a hostile environment but that's a whole other debate.
Thread Starter
I agree totally - and what was a problem of only buying a few "specialist" types is now extending into the "core" types - our current rate of acquiring F-35's is a disgrace
The speed of UCAV's is a n issue - but then if they coat s a few thousand dollars apiece and you're using $ 1 mm missiles (of which you haven't bought a lot) to shoot them down......................
The speed of UCAV's is a n issue - but then if they coat s a few thousand dollars apiece and you're using $ 1 mm missiles (of which you haven't bought a lot) to shoot them down......................
Is it? The R-37 has been known about for decades, in 1994 it hit a test target at 300km. Flying low doesn't save you from a radar thousands of feet above you.
