UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Thread Starter
Article in the Times by the guy who runs the (conservative) institute for Fiscal Studies
reckons to get finances back on track we'd need to consider means testing the pension, cutting free health care, cutting defence by 50%, ending support for child-care etc etc
doesn't reckon anyone will have the nerve tho'
reckons to get finances back on track we'd need to consider means testing the pension, cutting free health care, cutting defence by 50%, ending support for child-care etc etc
doesn't reckon anyone will have the nerve tho'
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
"Means test down to where?"
To where the books balance I guess...............
To where the books balance I guess...............
Thread Starter
as we all know its NOT a pension scheme as such - you pay for your elders and betters and you hope the kids will pay for you when you reach retirement. When it was set up 100+yeras back that was the only way they could afford it - and it's (almost) impossible to change
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The West has a blind spot and needs to realize Russia's transformation. It's no longer just a nation with unlimited numbers of bodies for cannon fodder; it's now adept with advanced drones, from Shaheds to Lancets, and AI-driven tech for warfare….
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...610511296.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...610511296.html
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.forces.net/services/army...-lethal-europe
General says hard-edged decisions to be made if Army is to be most lethal in Europe
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) faces some "hard-edged decisions" if the Army is to achieve its goal of becoming one of the most lethal in Europe, a senior general has warned.
Lieutenant General Rob Magowan, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Financial & Military Capability) was speaking to MPs after the department admitted there was a near-£17bn shortfall for new weapons and equipment over the next 10 years.…..
Speaking to the Commons Defence Committee, Lt Gen Magowan said: "Lessons from Ukraine and other operations worldwide show that we want more resilience and greater capability.
"There isn't at the moment the headroom within the equipment programme within the Army to reach the level of requirement that we think we need against the threat.
"We are now working as part of ABC (Annual Budget Cycle) 24, but more crucially as part of what we hope is an integrated review with a longer-term settlement to determine what within the Army programme or across defence we might take operational risk on".
He added:"We haven't completed that process so I can't say here today these are the capabilities within the Army or across defence that we're going to delete or defer….
"But we're going to have to make those hard-edged decisions if we're going to realise the operational requirements."
General says hard-edged decisions to be made if Army is to be most lethal in Europe
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) faces some "hard-edged decisions" if the Army is to achieve its goal of becoming one of the most lethal in Europe, a senior general has warned.
Lieutenant General Rob Magowan, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Financial & Military Capability) was speaking to MPs after the department admitted there was a near-£17bn shortfall for new weapons and equipment over the next 10 years.…..
Speaking to the Commons Defence Committee, Lt Gen Magowan said: "Lessons from Ukraine and other operations worldwide show that we want more resilience and greater capability.
"There isn't at the moment the headroom within the equipment programme within the Army to reach the level of requirement that we think we need against the threat.
"We are now working as part of ABC (Annual Budget Cycle) 24, but more crucially as part of what we hope is an integrated review with a longer-term settlement to determine what within the Army programme or across defence we might take operational risk on".
He added:"We haven't completed that process so I can't say here today these are the capabilities within the Army or across defence that we're going to delete or defer….
"But we're going to have to make those hard-edged decisions if we're going to realise the operational requirements."
Thread Starter
" that we're going to delete or defer…."
That sounds like a promise - not even an Aspiration..................
That sounds like a promise - not even an Aspiration..................
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Sir Humphrey (pinstripedline):
“The 2023 CDS RUSI speech is a fascinating insight into the challenges facing the MOD.
Pinstripedline analysis on the budget crisis facing MOD and asks if it is time to scrap the Carrier to focus instead on NATO.”;
http://tinyurl.com/mr2hwcz4
“The 2023 CDS RUSI speech is a fascinating insight into the challenges facing the MOD.
Pinstripedline analysis on the budget crisis facing MOD and asks if it is time to scrap the Carrier to focus instead on NATO.”;
http://tinyurl.com/mr2hwcz4
The following users liked this post:
One Russian submarine makes an appearance off the coast of Ireland, and 'Sir H' calls for both QE carriers to be binned? Putin must be pissing himself laughing.
The bit about Ireland deciding to scrap sonar equipped ships to invest in other capabilities is amusing too. What other capabilities would they be?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Since you ask, see page 12, para 44.
https://assets.gov.ie/271499/2fa0481...4c02d7559e.pdf
Subsurface awareness comes 7th on the list, military radar 1st - obviously more worried about Bears and Blackjacks than submarines.
https://assets.gov.ie/271499/2fa0481...4c02d7559e.pdf
Subsurface awareness comes 7th on the list, military radar 1st - obviously more worried about Bears and Blackjacks than submarines.
Speech as delivered by CDS is here https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...i-lecture-2023
I perceive it as saying Russia is a genuine threat but should be easily contained by NATO
- However, that appears to ignore any possibliliy of threatened use of nuclear weapons.
However it does not just focus on Russia.
The speech mentions efforts by the US and others to engage India as a counter balance to China. Personally, I have real concerns as to where India is going under the nationalist BJP
.
I perceive it as saying Russia is a genuine threat but should be easily contained by NATO
It is absurd to entertain the notion that Russia is in anyway a match for NATO.
However it does not just focus on Russia.
And then if we head east, the corresponding frameworks that might govern great power competition in the Indo-Pacific are absent altogether.
When you take the emerging great power competition, and the absent or decaying security architectures and add to that… the pace of technological change… the advent of AI…the impact of climate change…competition for natural resources, migration, health insecurity… as well as deep seated regional inequalities…
…This all represents a profound challenge to global stability, to our physical and economic security, and to our way of life.
When you take the emerging great power competition, and the absent or decaying security architectures and add to that… the pace of technological change… the advent of AI…the impact of climate change…competition for natural resources, migration, health insecurity… as well as deep seated regional inequalities…
…This all represents a profound challenge to global stability, to our physical and economic security, and to our way of life.
As to money - any speech by a defence chief has to toe HMG's line or he or she will have to start looking for charitable directorships sooner than expected.
The era of state-on-state competition has returned and will remain with us for decades to come.
We’re spending more on Defence. We’re transforming the Armed Forces. We’re becoming more integrated. But is the machinery and thinking deep within the British state truly calibrated to the scale of what is unfolding? In short: Does it all stack up? The resilience of our nation, and the ability to draw deep on our defence industry or our reserves? The ability of our extraordinary intelligence agencies to encompass the vast range of new and global threats?
These are big questions. And to be clear this is not a discussion about the next spending review
The era of state-on-state competition has returned and will remain with us for decades to come.
We’re spending more on Defence. We’re transforming the Armed Forces. We’re becoming more integrated. But is the machinery and thinking deep within the British state truly calibrated to the scale of what is unfolding? In short: Does it all stack up? The resilience of our nation, and the ability to draw deep on our defence industry or our reserves? The ability of our extraordinary intelligence agencies to encompass the vast range of new and global threats?
These are big questions. And to be clear this is not a discussion about the next spending review
.Last edited by SLXOwft; 15th Dec 2023 at 12:26. Reason: changing Tarty to Party
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The question being what will they cut to pay for a MSAM capability capable of covering the whole of the U.K.? Unless,of course, they just mean London and the south east…
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...ties-flwcnjv5l
Labour pledges urgent review of Britain’s defence capabilities
Britain has no means of preventing either a rogue missile attack on the country or the sabotage of vital underwater sea cables, Labour has warned, as the party pledged to launch an urgent review of Britain’s defence capabilities in government.…
The UK does not currently have any land-based air defences to protect critical infrastructure or population centres from attack by medium-range and long-range ballistic missiles.
The threat has always been considered minimal since the Cold War, with more pressing demands on other aspects of the defence budget. However, in the wake of the conflicts in the Ukraine and the Middle East Labour says it will look again at this approach if it comes to power next year, with a review of where such spending is allocated.
It follows moves by other European countries who have scrambled to procure air defences after watching Russia launch barrages of missiles and drones at Ukraine….
Healey said that the party would conduct a comprehensive review of Britain’s defensive capabilities, adding that the “first duty of any government is to keep the nation safe”.
“The brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine has shown that a country under threat or in conflict must have the capabilities to defend its citizens and prevent its territory from coming under attack,” he wrote….
Labour sources said Healey was concerned that too little focus had been given to defensive capabilities in previous strategic defence and security reviews.
In particular, he is concerned that the UK does not currently have the capacity to shoot down hostile missiles aimed at a settlement or piece of strategic infrastructure, such as a nuclear power station.
There are also worries over the security of critical underwater cables that facilitate telephone communications and internet access.
Healey said it was unclear what, if any, contingency plans the Ministry of Defence had to deal with such threats, which was why it was necessary to conduct an “under the hood” review of the whole of Britain’s capacity to defend its territory.
“This is why, in our first year, we’ll conduct a strategic defence and security review to assess the state of our armed forces, the nature of threats and the capabilities needed,” he said.
Defence sources say Britain does not have any land-based air defences comparable to the US or Israeli long-range systems. Instead, it relies on the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers, two of which are currently deployed in the Red Sea, to shoot down drones, fighter jets and cruise missiles.….
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/l...ties-flwcnjv5l
Labour pledges urgent review of Britain’s defence capabilities
Britain has no means of preventing either a rogue missile attack on the country or the sabotage of vital underwater sea cables, Labour has warned, as the party pledged to launch an urgent review of Britain’s defence capabilities in government.…
The UK does not currently have any land-based air defences to protect critical infrastructure or population centres from attack by medium-range and long-range ballistic missiles.
The threat has always been considered minimal since the Cold War, with more pressing demands on other aspects of the defence budget. However, in the wake of the conflicts in the Ukraine and the Middle East Labour says it will look again at this approach if it comes to power next year, with a review of where such spending is allocated.
It follows moves by other European countries who have scrambled to procure air defences after watching Russia launch barrages of missiles and drones at Ukraine….
Healey said that the party would conduct a comprehensive review of Britain’s defensive capabilities, adding that the “first duty of any government is to keep the nation safe”.
“The brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine has shown that a country under threat or in conflict must have the capabilities to defend its citizens and prevent its territory from coming under attack,” he wrote….
Labour sources said Healey was concerned that too little focus had been given to defensive capabilities in previous strategic defence and security reviews.
In particular, he is concerned that the UK does not currently have the capacity to shoot down hostile missiles aimed at a settlement or piece of strategic infrastructure, such as a nuclear power station.
There are also worries over the security of critical underwater cables that facilitate telephone communications and internet access.
Healey said it was unclear what, if any, contingency plans the Ministry of Defence had to deal with such threats, which was why it was necessary to conduct an “under the hood” review of the whole of Britain’s capacity to defend its territory.
“This is why, in our first year, we’ll conduct a strategic defence and security review to assess the state of our armed forces, the nature of threats and the capabilities needed,” he said.
Defence sources say Britain does not have any land-based air defences comparable to the US or Israeli long-range systems. Instead, it relies on the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers, two of which are currently deployed in the Red Sea, to shoot down drones, fighter jets and cruise missiles.….
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
"Healey said it was unclear what, if any, contingency plans the Ministry of Defence had to deal with such threats,"
i think we can guess.............................
i think we can guess.............................
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-...-capabilities/
MoD seeks advanced underwater force protection capabilities
The Ministry of Defence has released the Request for Information for advanced underwater force protection solutions.Outlined in the RFI, the Ministry explicitly states, “The Royal Navy is seeking information on current and future Underwater Force Protection capabilities including portable or fixed sonar systems, other find capabilities, anti-diver and counter UUV capabilities.”
Delving deeper into the requirements, the RFI specifies, “UW PROTECT, within Navy DEV, are interested in exploring the options of deployable underwater protection systems which can be deployed on board all RN Vessels in both UK waters and overseas.”
The document further defines the operational expectations of these systems: “These systems should be able to detect and track all underwater contacts ranging from larger targets such as UUVs to smaller targets such as smaller UUVs, ROVs and Divers.”Additionally, it highlights the necessity for these systems to perform in diverse conditions, stating, “They should be able to operate with accuracy within busy harbour and anchorage environments which have a high traffic density.”
The RFI also addresses the practical aspects of system deployment and usability. It points out, “Such systems should be person portable, with a simple user interface, and be quick and easy to deploy at short notice.”
For long-term installations, the RFI expresses interest in “current and future fixed underwater protection capabilities which could be installed to protect UK national maritime infrastructure or installed within UK military ports to protect RN assets and facilities.”
This RFI aims to achieve four outcomes:
.
With responses due by 5 January 2024, the outcomes of this RFI are poised to significantly influence the Royal Navy’s defence procurement and operational strategies in the coming years.
MoD seeks advanced underwater force protection capabilities
The Ministry of Defence has released the Request for Information for advanced underwater force protection solutions.Outlined in the RFI, the Ministry explicitly states, “The Royal Navy is seeking information on current and future Underwater Force Protection capabilities including portable or fixed sonar systems, other find capabilities, anti-diver and counter UUV capabilities.”
Delving deeper into the requirements, the RFI specifies, “UW PROTECT, within Navy DEV, are interested in exploring the options of deployable underwater protection systems which can be deployed on board all RN Vessels in both UK waters and overseas.”
The document further defines the operational expectations of these systems: “These systems should be able to detect and track all underwater contacts ranging from larger targets such as UUVs to smaller targets such as smaller UUVs, ROVs and Divers.”Additionally, it highlights the necessity for these systems to perform in diverse conditions, stating, “They should be able to operate with accuracy within busy harbour and anchorage environments which have a high traffic density.”
The RFI also addresses the practical aspects of system deployment and usability. It points out, “Such systems should be person portable, with a simple user interface, and be quick and easy to deploy at short notice.”
For long-term installations, the RFI expresses interest in “current and future fixed underwater protection capabilities which could be installed to protect UK national maritime infrastructure or installed within UK military ports to protect RN assets and facilities.”
This RFI aims to achieve four outcomes:
.
- Align the MOD requirement with industry capability and processes for procurement of the required solution.
- Develop a procurement strategy that will deliver best value for money for Defence.
- Implement an enduring solution that allows the Authority to plan its activity against an assured continuity of service, whilst also supporting ad-hoc, unprogrammed surges in demand.
- To inform a Procurement Strategy that enables the implementation of an enduring solution.
With responses due by 5 January 2024, the outcomes of this RFI are poised to significantly influence the Royal Navy’s defence procurement and operational strategies in the coming years.
Thread Starter
"The document further defines the operational expectations of these systems: “These systems should be able to detect and track all underwater contacts ranging from larger targets such as UUVs to smaller targets such as smaller UUVs, ROVs and Divers.”Additionally, it highlights the necessity for these systems to perform in diverse conditions, stating, “They should be able to operate with accuracy within busy harbour and anchorage environments which have a high traffic density.”
The RFI also addresses the practical aspects of system deployment and usability. It points out, “Such systems should be person portable, with a simple user interface, and be quick and easy to deploy at short notice.”"
Man portable sonar systems able to operate in busy environments? That's sort of .... difficult?
The RFI also addresses the practical aspects of system deployment and usability. It points out, “Such systems should be person portable, with a simple user interface, and be quick and easy to deploy at short notice.”"
Man portable sonar systems able to operate in busy environments? That's sort of .... difficult?