UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Good blog here from Sir Humphrey (and not as rabidly pro-RN as he can sometimes be... I do sometimes wonder if there is more than one of him contributing to the blog).
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the report from the Torygraph - thanks Nut (it's really not a nice read...)
____________________________________________________________ ________________________________
The Armed Forces Chiefs have each been given one priority to fix before the MoD can ask the Treasury for more money, the Defence secretary has said. The availability of ships, army recruitment and the length of time to train fighter jet pilots were singled out as areas requiring the biggest improvements across Britain’s military forces. Ben Wallace said his department had to “cut our cloth to match our ambition” and told the three service heads “your appetite has to match your stomach”.
Speaking on the Political Thinking podcast with Nick Robinson, the Defence Secretary said he had given each of the service chiefs a very clear priority. The First Sea Lord has been told “get what you’ve got, working,” a reference to the engine problems suffered by the Royal Navy’s Type-45 Destroyers. The Defence Secretary said he would be “laughed out of the building” by the Treasury if he sought extra money for more ships without fixing the existing problems in the fleet. An MoD spokesman said HMS Dauntless will be the first vessel through a “propulsion improvement programme” which is due to start in early 2020.
The head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, has been told to improve recruitment, after recent figures showed only around 74,000 soldiers were “fully trade trained” from a requirement of 82,000. “What’s the point of new infantry armoured vehicles,” the Defence Secretary asked, “if there’s no-one to go in the back of them?”...................
...........The Defence Secretary's comments come as a House of Commons paper released this week said a decision will be needed next year about replacing the nuclear warhead used in Britain's Trident missiles. The current warhead is expected to retire in the late 2030s, but a decision to start planning for a replacement needs to be made in the next few months.
A 2006 White Paper suggested the warhead replacement programme would cost around £2-3 billion (in 2006 prices). A decision on the warhead programme was delayed in the 2010 Defence review.
____________________________________________________________ ________________________________
The Armed Forces Chiefs have each been given one priority to fix before the MoD can ask the Treasury for more money, the Defence secretary has said. The availability of ships, army recruitment and the length of time to train fighter jet pilots were singled out as areas requiring the biggest improvements across Britain’s military forces. Ben Wallace said his department had to “cut our cloth to match our ambition” and told the three service heads “your appetite has to match your stomach”.
Speaking on the Political Thinking podcast with Nick Robinson, the Defence Secretary said he had given each of the service chiefs a very clear priority. The First Sea Lord has been told “get what you’ve got, working,” a reference to the engine problems suffered by the Royal Navy’s Type-45 Destroyers. The Defence Secretary said he would be “laughed out of the building” by the Treasury if he sought extra money for more ships without fixing the existing problems in the fleet. An MoD spokesman said HMS Dauntless will be the first vessel through a “propulsion improvement programme” which is due to start in early 2020.
The head of the army, General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, has been told to improve recruitment, after recent figures showed only around 74,000 soldiers were “fully trade trained” from a requirement of 82,000. “What’s the point of new infantry armoured vehicles,” the Defence Secretary asked, “if there’s no-one to go in the back of them?”...................
...........The Defence Secretary's comments come as a House of Commons paper released this week said a decision will be needed next year about replacing the nuclear warhead used in Britain's Trident missiles. The current warhead is expected to retire in the late 2030s, but a decision to start planning for a replacement needs to be made in the next few months.
A 2006 White Paper suggested the warhead replacement programme would cost around £2-3 billion (in 2006 prices). A decision on the warhead programme was delayed in the 2010 Defence review.
We have been here for a very long time. I blame the Politco's,...it is their trainset!
OAP
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Beds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Asturias56;10644946]Here's the report from the Torygraph - thanks Nut (it's really not a nice read...)
____________________________________________________________ ________________________________
The First Sea Lord has been told “get what you’ve got, working,” a reference to the engine problems suffered by the Royal Navy’s Type-45 Destroyers.
"And I thought so little, they rewarded me, by making me the ruler of the Queen's Navee"
____________________________________________________________ ________________________________
The First Sea Lord has been told “get what you’ve got, working,” a reference to the engine problems suffered by the Royal Navy’s Type-45 Destroyers.
"And I thought so little, they rewarded me, by making me the ruler of the Queen's Navee"
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...osts-bhwm5d856
Admirals thrown to sharks as ‘top-heavy’ navy tries to cut costs
Five Royal Navy admirals face walking the plank while the fleet’s Portsmouth headquarters is to be cut by almost half in the biggest shake-up of the high command in a generation.......
The navy has long been criticised for having more admirals than warships and the new defence secretary, Ben Wallace, has lambasted navy chiefs for the number of ships and submarines stuck in harbour awaiting repairs or lacking crews.....
Admiral Tony Radakin, the first sea lord, has decided to move fast to make the navy less top heavy and hopes to transfer hundreds of officers and sailors from shore jobs to the frontline fleet. “The navy leadership have concluded that if they don’t do this, they will have something worse imposed on them,” a senior defence source said.
Navy officers have dubbed the first sea lord “Radical Radakin” for his attempt to cut the number of admirals from 42 to 37. In the frame for the axe are five rear admirals — so-called two-star officers — including the head of sea training and other senior administrative roles. More junior officers will be given responsibility for their work.
All five admiral roles are going from the Navy’s Whale Island headquarters near Portsmouth naval base, where 14 admirals work. The rest of the admirals are based outside the fleet in the Ministry of Defence main building in London, at the ministry’s procurement organisation at Bristol and in several Nato headquarters around Europe. These officers are not under Radakin’s direct control.....
Radakin has also ordered an end to the job for life culture among middle ranking officers, with new employment rules for more than 200 captain-ranked officers — equivalent to army colonels and RAF group captains — being brought in. Previously they could serve automatically until the age of 55. In future they will have to retire if they are not selected for a new job after completing two three-year postings. This could lead to scores of officers retiring early in their mid forties and allow dozens of desk jobs to be cut.........
Admirals thrown to sharks as ‘top-heavy’ navy tries to cut costs
Five Royal Navy admirals face walking the plank while the fleet’s Portsmouth headquarters is to be cut by almost half in the biggest shake-up of the high command in a generation.......
The navy has long been criticised for having more admirals than warships and the new defence secretary, Ben Wallace, has lambasted navy chiefs for the number of ships and submarines stuck in harbour awaiting repairs or lacking crews.....
Admiral Tony Radakin, the first sea lord, has decided to move fast to make the navy less top heavy and hopes to transfer hundreds of officers and sailors from shore jobs to the frontline fleet. “The navy leadership have concluded that if they don’t do this, they will have something worse imposed on them,” a senior defence source said.
Navy officers have dubbed the first sea lord “Radical Radakin” for his attempt to cut the number of admirals from 42 to 37. In the frame for the axe are five rear admirals — so-called two-star officers — including the head of sea training and other senior administrative roles. More junior officers will be given responsibility for their work.
All five admiral roles are going from the Navy’s Whale Island headquarters near Portsmouth naval base, where 14 admirals work. The rest of the admirals are based outside the fleet in the Ministry of Defence main building in London, at the ministry’s procurement organisation at Bristol and in several Nato headquarters around Europe. These officers are not under Radakin’s direct control.....
Radakin has also ordered an end to the job for life culture among middle ranking officers, with new employment rules for more than 200 captain-ranked officers — equivalent to army colonels and RAF group captains — being brought in. Previously they could serve automatically until the age of 55. In future they will have to retire if they are not selected for a new job after completing two three-year postings. This could lead to scores of officers retiring early in their mid forties and allow dozens of desk jobs to be cut.........
Thread Starter
"This could lead to scores of officers retiring early in their mid forties and allow dozens of desk jobs to be cut........." which suggests they exist now to provide a home for mid-ranking, middle aged officers..................
Part of the problem is of course one of nomenclature - when you say "Admiral" 99% of the population think of Nelson, personally directing the action, or maybe sitting in a bunker moving wooden warship models on a map of the N Atlantic to trap the "Bismark". Most of the sainted 42 are really Senior Managers and should have titles that reflect this - then you could be "Captain and VP Electronics" .
Part of the problem is of course one of nomenclature - when you say "Admiral" 99% of the population think of Nelson, personally directing the action, or maybe sitting in a bunker moving wooden warship models on a map of the N Atlantic to trap the "Bismark". Most of the sainted 42 are really Senior Managers and should have titles that reflect this - then you could be "Captain and VP Electronics" .
BVRAAM,
"Well, you lefties weaponised the NHS, forcing the Conservatives to enshrine a whopping £34Bn in law - an utterly ridiculous sum that wasn't needed, which could have partly gone on defence. But here we are.....
The point is that we have a finite budget and political pressure should not be the single decider on how money is spent, if we want to avoid damaging cuts to vital services such as Defence."
Er, I think that "us lefties" did no such thing. Us lefties, and for that tired old worn out cliche you could substitute "99.9% of the British public" merely wanted an end to drastic reductions in Tory health funding which we have seen for the last decade, and the Johnson £34b is about half of what was invested annually in the Blair years. As to your assertion that it is a ridiculous sum that wasn't needed, I am afraid that statement just shows how out of touch you are.
"Well, you lefties weaponised the NHS, forcing the Conservatives to enshrine a whopping £34Bn in law - an utterly ridiculous sum that wasn't needed, which could have partly gone on defence. But here we are.....
The point is that we have a finite budget and political pressure should not be the single decider on how money is spent, if we want to avoid damaging cuts to vital services such as Defence."
Er, I think that "us lefties" did no such thing. Us lefties, and for that tired old worn out cliche you could substitute "99.9% of the British public" merely wanted an end to drastic reductions in Tory health funding which we have seen for the last decade, and the Johnson £34b is about half of what was invested annually in the Blair years. As to your assertion that it is a ridiculous sum that wasn't needed, I am afraid that statement just shows how out of touch you are.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Just puzzled at how he might change their terms of service and retire them before 55, unless the RN was to offer massive redundancy payments and immediate full pensions at the final rate. Which would eliminate any savings.
The RN used to have a more expansive up/out policy than the Army and RAF. The forced retirement option is already in QRs and was regularly exercised at 2-star level and more recently at 1-star level. Unsurprising I know of a couple of guys elect to stay at OF5 and keep a job / pension / CEA rather than take a risky push to star rank. I guess they will just bring the QR forced retirement in at a lower rank and only apply it on those who accept the ToS that goes with a promotion offer.
Of course, the law of unintended consequences will kick-in with a higher rate of promotions to keep the pipe fresh with new blood to replace those dumped-out of the system before their full pension point. Recruitment, training pipeline, retention and appropriate experience levels must just be peachy in the RN to suggest this kind of policy.
Of course, the law of unintended consequences will kick-in with a higher rate of promotions to keep the pipe fresh with new blood to replace those dumped-out of the system before their full pension point. Recruitment, training pipeline, retention and appropriate experience levels must just be peachy in the RN to suggest this kind of policy.
The RN used to have a more expansive up/out policy than the Army and RAF. The forced retirement option is already in QRs and was regularly exercised at 2-star level and more recently at 1-star level. Unsurprising I know of a couple of guys elect to stay at OF5 and keep a job / pension / CEA rather than take a risky push to star rank. I guess they will just bring the QR forced retirement in at a lower rank and only apply it on those who accept the ToS that goes with a promotion offer.
Of course, the law of unintended consequences will kick-in with a higher rate of promotions to keep the pipe fresh with new blood to replace those dumped-out of the system before their full pension point. Recruitment, training pipeline, retention and appropriate experience levels must just be peachy in the RN to suggest this kind of policy.
Of course, the law of unintended consequences will kick-in with a higher rate of promotions to keep the pipe fresh with new blood to replace those dumped-out of the system before their full pension point. Recruitment, training pipeline, retention and appropriate experience levels must just be peachy in the RN to suggest this kind of policy.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The system doesn't seem to get that individuals might be quite happy with their lot at their current rank.... apparently we all need to be chiselling up the structure towards CDS...
That is a tri-service thing, not just RN, and used at 1* by the RAF quite frequently over recent years. RAF Manning has examined expanding the scope to OF5s but I’ve not heard anything on that for a couple of years. Second career prospects for a late-40s gp capt probably aren’t as good as for someone leaving at their 20/40 pension point, so there would be quite a lot of risk in sticking with the service at the mid-career point. If the terms of service are changed, introducing a way of stepping directly across to sqn ldr PAS at the equivalent pay point would offer an attractive (to some) safety net for use if their career thrust stalls.
No different than graduates being offered an option at 12 years if they haven't made it past the "lowly" rank of Flt Lt I suppose.
The system doesn't seem to get that individuals might be quite happy with their lot at their current rank.... apparently we all need to be chiselling up the structure towards CDS...
The system doesn't seem to get that individuals might be quite happy with their lot at their current rank.... apparently we all need to be chiselling up the structure towards CDS...
This could lead to scores of officers retiring early in their mid forties and allow dozens of desk jobs to be cut.........
we can all identify with these rotations where time ‘runs ou’ And they watch their replacement take over. Then the circle continues.
Look at Manning, nothing has changed or improved, even when we are short of the valued branches.
Some positions will be civilianised, some output will stop/change, some will remain military.
There are enough Naval officers in and around Portsmouth that finding those who are willing to go into CS TACOS + Mil
pension that we can maintain SQEP.
There are enough Naval officers in and around Portsmouth that finding those who are willing to go into CS TACOS + Mil
pension that we can maintain SQEP.
The forced retirement works ok at 2-star level as, within reason, they can pick their exit timescale and the SSRB keeps them out of poverty. There is a well-established pool of 2-star holding officers picking up odd-jobs whilst they prepare the golden parachute. Lower down the food chain you will just be burdened with a regular posting until you get the boot.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is worth remembering that 1* and above receive appointments, not postings. Part of this means (I think) that they can be let go at any time without penalty versus postings until their end of service date for those <1*.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS if these folk provide SQEP then they probably bring something very useful to the party other than blind greasy pole climbing, aiming for that top job.
Interesting piece in Air Forces monthly regarding the Arctic. Essentially the retreating Polar Ice cap is providing an opportunity for exploiting resources. This hasn't been lost on the Russians. The Americans are trying to establish a more visible presence here currently to the extent of simply making sure the Kremlin knows that the USAF and others have a substantial enough reach across the Arctic Circle B-2s and B-52s have been overflying the region just to make their presence felt. AM Gerry Mayhew says we need to "push the message out that we're ready to do anything anywhere".
Evidently the movement of the ice caps recently has opened up new sometime sea lanes. This all adds grist to the Russian endeavours to explore the advantage of mineral excavation in the newly exposed parts of the region. This more specifically means Oil, Gas and Fishing rights inside a 200 NM exclusion zone which Moscow is seeking to impose/defend.
FB
Evidently the movement of the ice caps recently has opened up new sometime sea lanes. This all adds grist to the Russian endeavours to explore the advantage of mineral excavation in the newly exposed parts of the region. This more specifically means Oil, Gas and Fishing rights inside a 200 NM exclusion zone which Moscow is seeking to impose/defend.
FB
Thread Starter
well the Russians have always tried to open up the NE Passage - and it looks as if it'll be easier in the future - with global warming a lot of Russia will be a less hostile climatic region
The usual legal rules will apply to boundaries - so expect a lot of yelling and screaming from everyone who has skin in the game - - Russia, Norway, Denmark/greenland, Canada & the USA
Even more "9-dash lines" I expect.............
The usual legal rules will apply to boundaries - so expect a lot of yelling and screaming from everyone who has skin in the game - - Russia, Norway, Denmark/greenland, Canada & the USA
Even more "9-dash lines" I expect.............
