UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Thread Starter
It s the same with the Civil Service - no-one is around long term and so everyone has to spend 3-6 months on the learning curve every 2-3 years
No wonder things don't turn out well
No wonder things don't turn out well
Been there, seen that as well, however I have worked with some very talented CSs. I do have some sympathy with the idea that those who are seen as prospects for the top need to get wide and varied experience so need to move regularly. Personaly, I can get stale and bored which is why I have chosen to work in business change projects as my motivation is delivering substantive improvement. Effective handover requires its own skills which is where IMO the problem often lies.
At the risk over posting, my point was that the SRO has service experience which appears directly relevant. He has/is about to graduate from the Major Projects Leadership Academy which may account for the change from interim to substantive SRO. Identifying the correct solution and negotiating the contract requires a different skill set to managing delivery and BAU so the point of change of SRO looks sensible to me.
At the risk over posting, my point was that the SRO has service experience which appears directly relevant. He has/is about to graduate from the Major Projects Leadership Academy which may account for the change from interim to substantive SRO. Identifying the correct solution and negotiating the contract requires a different skill set to managing delivery and BAU so the point of change of SRO looks sensible to me.
You do come across some oddities though. The last aircraft programme I managed, the main dependency was meant to be delivered by the... SRO. He didn't, because he didn't have sufficient control, and didn't realise his own staff had flatly refused to get involved. But as a (technical) programme manager is required to be able to every job in the team, we just did it for them.
Best of luck Cdre Woodard! But never forget . You may be Senior RO. But there are people below you with more responsibility and authority.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,235
Received 52 Likes
on
21 Posts
From The Sunday Times today:
The equivalent of £165m per aircraft? For a Chinook? Somebody tell me that is a mistake. Please.
Ben Wallace was accused of sparking a diplomatic incident with the US government after threatening to cancel an order of American-made military helicopters intended for use by Britain’s special forces.
The former defence secretary issued the warning directly to his counterpart in the Pentagon last month before an agreed position had been reached among ministers back in London.
The row, which embroiled the British and American ambassadors, forced Downing Street to intervene in an attempt to defuse tensions.
Wallace, who formally stepped down as defence secretary on Thursday, had hoped to succeed Jens Stoltenberg as the secretary-general of Nato.
In June, Wallace acknowledged that his campaign to take over the military alliance had failed, after President Biden refused to back his candidacy.
Stoltenberg, a former prime minister of Norway, has extended his term by a year. Allied leaders are said to be looking for a former head of state to replace him.
Last month, Wallace publicly voiced his frustration over the lack of support from the White House, telling The Sunday Times: “Why do you not support your closest ally when they put forward a candidate? I think it’s a fair question.”
It can now be disclosed that Wallace, 53, spent his final weeks in office pushing to cancel the deal, worth billions, to buy military helicopters for UK special forces.
The contract involves the purchase of 14 Chinook H-47 extended-range helicopters made by Boeing, which is based in Arlington, Virginia. The first of the new aircraft had been expected to be delivered by 2026.
America said that the helicopters would improve the UK’s capabilities and its ability to contribute to joint operations with the US and other Nato partners.
However, UK sources said that in recent weeks Wallace began to express serious misgivings about the deal. During internal discussions, he proposed cancelling it as part of a cost-cutting exercise to relieve pressure on the MoD’s tight budgets.
Sources close to Wallace said he had tried to cancel the project during the last spending review, but had been assured that delaying it would produce savings of close to £200 million. The costs have since ballooned, rising by approximately £500 million to about £2.3 billion.
Wallace has argued that he could buy two Airbus A400M Atlas transport aircraft for £500 million. The UK’s 60-strong Chinook fleet costs approximately £14,000 an hour to run, a source said.
There is also a debate about whether the UK needs the capability. A source close to Wallace said Britain already had the biggest heavy lift fleet in Europe, and that the money could be better spent investing in medium-lift support helicopters, which are cheaper to run.
There are also concerns that the UK lacks the communications, satellite technology and transport to carry out special forces operations with the Chinooks. “Spending £2.3 billion on this will mean we will have less to spend on medium-lift helicopters that will be British-assembled and made,” the source added.
Others in government disagreed, with one describing the proposal as “mad”. A second added: “It seemed like he was trying to piss off the Americans. That is certainly how some have read it.”
Another said the move led to progress on the deal grinding to a halt. “Everybody realised this was mad and we’ve been sitting on it over the summer. It has certainly caused a flare-up. These things are done on a very long programme of activity, so disrupting all that is not cool.”
A source close to Wallace categorically denied that the issue was in any way related to the Nato job, branding any suggested link “pathetic” and pointing out that he had raised the prospect of cancelling the deal two years ago. They added that Wallace’s concerns were based entirely around cost, capability and the actual value of the deal to the UK.
With the US becoming increasingly alarmed, Jane Hartley, the US ambassador to the UK, wrote to No 10 on August 1 to seek clarity on the future of the deal. Downing Street is understood to have tried to provide assurances to Hartley.
Separately, Karen Pierce, the British ambassador to the US, is understood to have received representations from Washington. In a letter sent back to London, she is understood to have warned No 10 it was a “bad idea” to cancel the deal. “She was very unhappy,” a source familiar with her letter said.
A source said British officials had also tried to reassure their counterparts that the issue would be resolved when Wallace left government. “There has been a lot of reconciliation, just to keep the US reassured.” He was replaced as defence secretary last week by Grant Shapps.
In a letter on August 10 to Lloyd Austin, the US secretary of state for defence, Wallace is said to have made clear that he was considering cancelling the deal.
A source said Wallace’s letter was sent despite there being no agreed position in government. “Meanwhile Wallace is writing to his counterpart in the US saying this might happen, when it’s still being considered privately within the government. It’s quite destructive behaviour.”
It is unclear whether Downing Street was aware or authorised the letter. No 10 declined to comment when approached, as did spokesmen for Hartley and Pierce.
With Shapps taking over from Wallace, sources said the issue remained a “live discussion” in government and would be one of the top items in the new defence secretary’s in-tray. Sunak is understood to be of the view that Shapps should press ahead with the deal.
The Ministry of Defence said last night: “There has been no change to the UK’s future heavy-lift helicopter portfolio. We keep all capability requirements under review to ensure we have a balanced and affordable portfolio which best meets our needs. The US is one of the UK’s closest allies and our defence and intelligence partnership is, and will always be, one of the strongest in the world.”
The former defence secretary issued the warning directly to his counterpart in the Pentagon last month before an agreed position had been reached among ministers back in London.
The row, which embroiled the British and American ambassadors, forced Downing Street to intervene in an attempt to defuse tensions.
Wallace, who formally stepped down as defence secretary on Thursday, had hoped to succeed Jens Stoltenberg as the secretary-general of Nato.
In June, Wallace acknowledged that his campaign to take over the military alliance had failed, after President Biden refused to back his candidacy.
Stoltenberg, a former prime minister of Norway, has extended his term by a year. Allied leaders are said to be looking for a former head of state to replace him.
Last month, Wallace publicly voiced his frustration over the lack of support from the White House, telling The Sunday Times: “Why do you not support your closest ally when they put forward a candidate? I think it’s a fair question.”
It can now be disclosed that Wallace, 53, spent his final weeks in office pushing to cancel the deal, worth billions, to buy military helicopters for UK special forces.
The contract involves the purchase of 14 Chinook H-47 extended-range helicopters made by Boeing, which is based in Arlington, Virginia. The first of the new aircraft had been expected to be delivered by 2026.
America said that the helicopters would improve the UK’s capabilities and its ability to contribute to joint operations with the US and other Nato partners.
However, UK sources said that in recent weeks Wallace began to express serious misgivings about the deal. During internal discussions, he proposed cancelling it as part of a cost-cutting exercise to relieve pressure on the MoD’s tight budgets.
Sources close to Wallace said he had tried to cancel the project during the last spending review, but had been assured that delaying it would produce savings of close to £200 million. The costs have since ballooned, rising by approximately £500 million to about £2.3 billion.
Wallace has argued that he could buy two Airbus A400M Atlas transport aircraft for £500 million. The UK’s 60-strong Chinook fleet costs approximately £14,000 an hour to run, a source said.
There is also a debate about whether the UK needs the capability. A source close to Wallace said Britain already had the biggest heavy lift fleet in Europe, and that the money could be better spent investing in medium-lift support helicopters, which are cheaper to run.
There are also concerns that the UK lacks the communications, satellite technology and transport to carry out special forces operations with the Chinooks. “Spending £2.3 billion on this will mean we will have less to spend on medium-lift helicopters that will be British-assembled and made,” the source added.
Others in government disagreed, with one describing the proposal as “mad”. A second added: “It seemed like he was trying to piss off the Americans. That is certainly how some have read it.”
Another said the move led to progress on the deal grinding to a halt. “Everybody realised this was mad and we’ve been sitting on it over the summer. It has certainly caused a flare-up. These things are done on a very long programme of activity, so disrupting all that is not cool.”
A source close to Wallace categorically denied that the issue was in any way related to the Nato job, branding any suggested link “pathetic” and pointing out that he had raised the prospect of cancelling the deal two years ago. They added that Wallace’s concerns were based entirely around cost, capability and the actual value of the deal to the UK.
With the US becoming increasingly alarmed, Jane Hartley, the US ambassador to the UK, wrote to No 10 on August 1 to seek clarity on the future of the deal. Downing Street is understood to have tried to provide assurances to Hartley.
Separately, Karen Pierce, the British ambassador to the US, is understood to have received representations from Washington. In a letter sent back to London, she is understood to have warned No 10 it was a “bad idea” to cancel the deal. “She was very unhappy,” a source familiar with her letter said.
A source said British officials had also tried to reassure their counterparts that the issue would be resolved when Wallace left government. “There has been a lot of reconciliation, just to keep the US reassured.” He was replaced as defence secretary last week by Grant Shapps.
In a letter on August 10 to Lloyd Austin, the US secretary of state for defence, Wallace is said to have made clear that he was considering cancelling the deal.
A source said Wallace’s letter was sent despite there being no agreed position in government. “Meanwhile Wallace is writing to his counterpart in the US saying this might happen, when it’s still being considered privately within the government. It’s quite destructive behaviour.”
It is unclear whether Downing Street was aware or authorised the letter. No 10 declined to comment when approached, as did spokesmen for Hartley and Pierce.
With Shapps taking over from Wallace, sources said the issue remained a “live discussion” in government and would be one of the top items in the new defence secretary’s in-tray. Sunak is understood to be of the view that Shapps should press ahead with the deal.
The Ministry of Defence said last night: “There has been no change to the UK’s future heavy-lift helicopter portfolio. We keep all capability requirements under review to ensure we have a balanced and affordable portfolio which best meets our needs. The US is one of the UK’s closest allies and our defence and intelligence partnership is, and will always be, one of the strongest in the world.”
The following users liked this post:
The original FMS determination in October 2018 was for $3.5 Billion for 16 ER H-47 and ancilliary costs. See below, following Covid an order for 14 was agreed at a reported cost of $2Billion (see above) GBP/USD was then c.1.38 it is now c1.25 a fall of nearly 10.5%
WASHINGTON, October 19, 2018 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the United Kingdom of sixteen (16) H-47 Chinook (Extended Range) helicopters for an estimated cost of $3.5 billion. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.
The Government of United Kingdom has requested a possible sale of sixteen (16) H-47 Chinook (Extended Range) helicopters; thirty-six (36) T-55-GA-714A engines (32 installed, 4 spares); forty-eight (48) embedded GPS inertial navigation units (32 installed, 16 spares); twenty (20) common missile warning systems (16 installed, 4 spares); twenty-two (22) radio-frequency countermeasures (16 installed, 6 spares); nineteen (19) multi-mode radars (16 installed, 3 spares); nineteen (19) electro-optical sensor systems (16 installed, 3 spares); forty (40) M-134D-T mini* guns, plus mounts and tools (32 installed, 8 spares); and forty (40) M240H machine guns, plus mounts and tools (32 installed, 8 spares). This sale also includes communications equipment; navigation equipment; aircraft survivability equipment; initial training equipment and services; synthetic training equipment; support package including spares and repair parts; special tools and test equipment; aviation ground support equipment; safety and air worthiness certification; technical support; maintenance support; technical and aircrew publications; mission planning system equipment and support; and, project management and governance; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistic and program support. Total estimated cost is $3.5 billion.
The Government of United Kingdom has requested a possible sale of sixteen (16) H-47 Chinook (Extended Range) helicopters; thirty-six (36) T-55-GA-714A engines (32 installed, 4 spares); forty-eight (48) embedded GPS inertial navigation units (32 installed, 16 spares); twenty (20) common missile warning systems (16 installed, 4 spares); twenty-two (22) radio-frequency countermeasures (16 installed, 6 spares); nineteen (19) multi-mode radars (16 installed, 3 spares); nineteen (19) electro-optical sensor systems (16 installed, 3 spares); forty (40) M-134D-T mini* guns, plus mounts and tools (32 installed, 8 spares); and forty (40) M240H machine guns, plus mounts and tools (32 installed, 8 spares). This sale also includes communications equipment; navigation equipment; aircraft survivability equipment; initial training equipment and services; synthetic training equipment; support package including spares and repair parts; special tools and test equipment; aviation ground support equipment; safety and air worthiness certification; technical support; maintenance support; technical and aircrew publications; mission planning system equipment and support; and, project management and governance; U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistic and program support. Total estimated cost is $3.5 billion.
Thread Starter
"Wallace has argued that he could buy two Airbus A400M Atlas transport aircraft for £500 million. The UK’s 60-strong Chinook fleet costs approximately £14,000 an hour to run, a source said."
One hopes he could see the essential difference - but who knows?
One hopes he could see the essential difference - but who knows?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Ministry of Defence has issued a Prior Information Notice to industry, signalling an intent to “accelerate and exploit at pace Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) as an emerging technology.”
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brit...pon-programme/
Britain accelerating laser weapon programme
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brit...pon-programme/
Britain accelerating laser weapon programme
Thread Starter
rather they spent the money on getting more of the kit they really need - like speeding up F-35 deliveries TBH
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Letter by James Cartlidge MP to Defence Committee adds more info to ongoing programs:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...569499765.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...569499765.html
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Just as we have, literally, in the last couple of days, announced we are cutting the timeline to rush the Challenger 3 into service with 6 prototypes to be built and tested next year….
https://www.defensenews.com/land/202...nization-plan/
US Army scraps Abrams tank upgrade, unveils new modernization plan
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is scrapping its current upgrade plans for the Abrams main battle tank and pursuing a more significant modernization effort to increase its mobility and survivability on the battlefield, the service announced in a statement Wednesday.
The Army will end its M1A2 System Enhancement Package version 4 program, and instead develop the M1E3 Abrams focused on challenges the tank is likely to face on the battlefield of 2040 and beyond, the service said. The service was supposed to receive the M1A2 SEPv4 version this past spring.
The SEPv4 will not go into production as planned, Army Under Secretary Gabe Camarillo told Defense News in a Sept. 6 interview at the Defense News Conference in Arlington, Virginia.
“We’re essentially going to invest those resources into the [research and] development on this new upgraded Abrams,” he said. “t’s really threat-based, it’s everything that we’re seeing right now, even recently in Ukraine in terms of a native active protection system, lighter weight, more survivability, and of course reduced logistical burdens as well for the Army.”
The Abrams tank “can no longer grow its capabilities without adding weight, and we need to reduce its logistical footprint,” Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, the Army’s program executive officer for ground combat systems, said in the statement. “The war in Ukraine has highlighted a critical need for integrated protections for soldiers, built from within instead of adding on.”
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/l...-challenger-3/
Insight: The UK's Challenger 3 tank programme gets ready for service in 2025
Initially planned for service entry between 2027 and 2030, the British Army's first Challenger 3 tanks remain on track for accelerated delivery in 2025. Shephard Defence Insight provides full technical details and a programme update for this vital UK armoured capability.…
https://www.defensenews.com/land/202...nization-plan/
US Army scraps Abrams tank upgrade, unveils new modernization plan
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is scrapping its current upgrade plans for the Abrams main battle tank and pursuing a more significant modernization effort to increase its mobility and survivability on the battlefield, the service announced in a statement Wednesday.
The Army will end its M1A2 System Enhancement Package version 4 program, and instead develop the M1E3 Abrams focused on challenges the tank is likely to face on the battlefield of 2040 and beyond, the service said. The service was supposed to receive the M1A2 SEPv4 version this past spring.
The SEPv4 will not go into production as planned, Army Under Secretary Gabe Camarillo told Defense News in a Sept. 6 interview at the Defense News Conference in Arlington, Virginia.
“We’re essentially going to invest those resources into the [research and] development on this new upgraded Abrams,” he said. “t’s really threat-based, it’s everything that we’re seeing right now, even recently in Ukraine in terms of a native active protection system, lighter weight, more survivability, and of course reduced logistical burdens as well for the Army.”
The Abrams tank “can no longer grow its capabilities without adding weight, and we need to reduce its logistical footprint,” Maj. Gen. Glenn Dean, the Army’s program executive officer for ground combat systems, said in the statement. “The war in Ukraine has highlighted a critical need for integrated protections for soldiers, built from within instead of adding on.”
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/l...-challenger-3/
Insight: The UK's Challenger 3 tank programme gets ready for service in 2025
Initially planned for service entry between 2027 and 2030, the British Army's first Challenger 3 tanks remain on track for accelerated delivery in 2025. Shephard Defence Insight provides full technical details and a programme update for this vital UK armoured capability.…
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
An interesting thought experiment - but when we can’t even afford to buy planned F-35s or E-7s, it’s a bit moot…
Wavell Room:
"This article considers whether the UK should invest in a more substantial long-range strike capability, namely some form of bomber."
https://wavellroom.com/2020/09/10/th...-range-strike/
The UK and Long-Range Strike
As the UK enters the third decade of the 21st century, it is confronted by a strategic system in flux. This is particularly highlighted by the resurgence of great power rivalry, the renewed Russian threat to regional and international security, the shifting global balance of power from the Euro-Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific, the rise of China as a global power, regional instability in the Middle East, and wider geopolitical shifts. This is compounded by the Trump Administration’s approach to foreign policy, particularly it’s attitude towards arms control and reported interest in resuming nuclear testing, and the potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
It is likely that defence budgets will come under intense pressure due to the economic impact of the pandemic, however, given the deteriorating geopolitical environment, significant defence cuts may only serve to embolden potential adversaries seeking to change local or, indeed, the international status quo. Moreover, the UK itself is at a critical strategic juncture with the opportunities inherent in its withdrawal from the European Union. Ahead of the forthcoming Integrated Security, Defence and Foreign Policy Review, discussion of the UK’s strategic priorities and balance of capabilities is warranted. In this regard, this article considers whether the UK should invest in a more substantial long-range strike capability, namely some form of bomber.….
Wavell Room:
"This article considers whether the UK should invest in a more substantial long-range strike capability, namely some form of bomber."
https://wavellroom.com/2020/09/10/th...-range-strike/
The UK and Long-Range Strike
As the UK enters the third decade of the 21st century, it is confronted by a strategic system in flux. This is particularly highlighted by the resurgence of great power rivalry, the renewed Russian threat to regional and international security, the shifting global balance of power from the Euro-Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific, the rise of China as a global power, regional instability in the Middle East, and wider geopolitical shifts. This is compounded by the Trump Administration’s approach to foreign policy, particularly it’s attitude towards arms control and reported interest in resuming nuclear testing, and the potential impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
It is likely that defence budgets will come under intense pressure due to the economic impact of the pandemic, however, given the deteriorating geopolitical environment, significant defence cuts may only serve to embolden potential adversaries seeking to change local or, indeed, the international status quo. Moreover, the UK itself is at a critical strategic juncture with the opportunities inherent in its withdrawal from the European Union. Ahead of the forthcoming Integrated Security, Defence and Foreign Policy Review, discussion of the UK’s strategic priorities and balance of capabilities is warranted. In this regard, this article considers whether the UK should invest in a more substantial long-range strike capability, namely some form of bomber.….
Thread Starter
No real discussion of how it is to be funded, or even how a case can be made to the Govt - never mind the public.
Even post pandemic the medium/long term financial forecasts for the UK show ever increasing expenditures on pensioners, the sick etc. - the money has to come from somewhere but no-one has a clue how it'll be done.
Even post pandemic the medium/long term financial forecasts for the UK show ever increasing expenditures on pensioners, the sick etc. - the money has to come from somewhere but no-one has a clue how it'll be done.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.defensenews.com/global/e...-report-finds/
Royal Air Force faces significant aircraft shortfalls, report finds
LONDON — British lawmakers say the Royal Air Force now lacks capabilities across combat, air transport and early warning aircraft.
A Ministry of Defence command paper in 2021 ordered cuts to aircraft numbers that are creating a combat air shortfall in jet numbers that will persist into the 2030s, the Parliamentary defence committee said in a report on aviation procurement released Sept. 10.
The committee said the British combat jet fleet now only provides a boutique capability and lacks numerical depth and an inadequate attrition reserve.
“Combat aircraft numbers are already low. The defence command paper cuts will create a combat air capability gap which, on current plans, will persist well into the 2030s. This is unacceptable. The [Ministry of Defence] and RAF must consider as a matter of urgency how they can increase combat air mass in the short term,” said the report…….
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...78/report.html
Aviation Procurement: Winging it?
This is a House of Commons Committee report, with recommendations to government. The Government has two months to respond.
Royal Air Force faces significant aircraft shortfalls, report finds
LONDON — British lawmakers say the Royal Air Force now lacks capabilities across combat, air transport and early warning aircraft.
A Ministry of Defence command paper in 2021 ordered cuts to aircraft numbers that are creating a combat air shortfall in jet numbers that will persist into the 2030s, the Parliamentary defence committee said in a report on aviation procurement released Sept. 10.
The committee said the British combat jet fleet now only provides a boutique capability and lacks numerical depth and an inadequate attrition reserve.
“Combat aircraft numbers are already low. The defence command paper cuts will create a combat air capability gap which, on current plans, will persist well into the 2030s. This is unacceptable. The [Ministry of Defence] and RAF must consider as a matter of urgency how they can increase combat air mass in the short term,” said the report…….
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...78/report.html
Aviation Procurement: Winging it?
This is a House of Commons Committee report, with recommendations to government. The Government has two months to respond.
Thread Starter
30. The practicalities of operating the joint Lightning Force have created ambiguities about the attribution of the fleet.
Captain (ret’d) Dan Stembridge told us that this created tension between the RAF and the Royal Navy and made it hard to quantify how many aircraft were required: The politics of this is, are the F-35s that we have in the UK carrier-borne air systems that are able to operate on land, or are they land-based systems that are able to operate at sea? Fundamentally, we make the choice to not decide. That drives double accounting over what you are using those systems for. We currently have a Navy that force generates a maritime taskforce. We have an Air Force that generates air systems, and then we place the responsibility for force generating carrier strike to the Navy, but they do not have the levers to be able to effect that, because they do not own the air systems and they don’t own the money and therefore they do not own the capability development or the force generation for it. That creates tension, whether that is intentional or not. It creates tension and it creates question marks over what is enough… Is 72 or 73 enough to deliver carrier strike? It is if you attribute them to do that. If you attribute them to also do other things, it is not enough.
33 Dr Sophy Antrobus made a similar point about over-attribution: All the expectations are on the head of F-35B, and you have a bit of a problem if you assume that it is going to be doing all of the things that we would like it to be doing, at the same time, in one high-end conflict.34
Captain (ret’d) Dan Stembridge told us that this created tension between the RAF and the Royal Navy and made it hard to quantify how many aircraft were required: The politics of this is, are the F-35s that we have in the UK carrier-borne air systems that are able to operate on land, or are they land-based systems that are able to operate at sea? Fundamentally, we make the choice to not decide. That drives double accounting over what you are using those systems for. We currently have a Navy that force generates a maritime taskforce. We have an Air Force that generates air systems, and then we place the responsibility for force generating carrier strike to the Navy, but they do not have the levers to be able to effect that, because they do not own the air systems and they don’t own the money and therefore they do not own the capability development or the force generation for it. That creates tension, whether that is intentional or not. It creates tension and it creates question marks over what is enough… Is 72 or 73 enough to deliver carrier strike? It is if you attribute them to do that. If you attribute them to also do other things, it is not enough.
33 Dr Sophy Antrobus made a similar point about over-attribution: All the expectations are on the head of F-35B, and you have a bit of a problem if you assume that it is going to be doing all of the things that we would like it to be doing, at the same time, in one high-end conflict.34
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Thread Starter
55. Against the weight of this evidence, the MoD nonetheless told us that “a fleet of three Wedgetail aircraft, with improved availability when compared to the Sentry, would provide Defence with the capability it needs and provide the UK’s contribution to NATO”.72 56. Given that the cuts to the fleet were made on cost grounds, we examined the proposed savings in detail. Acquisition costs for the original fleet of five aircraft were estimated at £2.155 billion; the MoD now expects to pay £1.89 billion for three.73 Thus, whilst the fleet size has been slashed by 40%, acquisition costs have reduced by just 12%. The graphic below demonstrates the acquisition cost of each aircraft in the original and revised fleet. As our recent report on MoD procurement noted, the decision to cut the fleet clearly represents extremely poor value for money.74
Thread Starter
Actually the whole thing is such a damning indictment of the current situation I'm not going to post anymore from it - once you get to trraining you just feel its all too awful 
Thread Starter
It's the whole read that is sooo depressing - and the shifty replies from anyone in power.
Not terribly new but its all in on place and it all stinks
Not terribly new but its all in on place and it all stinks
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
New: Tobias Ellwood has quit as Defence Select Committee chairman, following reports that he could have been the first ever elected chair to be ousted