UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Thread Starter
Flogging military kit etc out the back door is as old as armies themselves I think you'll find
Rishi Sunak has promised billions more for defence to counter threats from "an axis of authoritarian states".
The prime minister said UK military spending would rise to 2.5% of national income by 2030, in a move that hardens a previous spending pledge.
He stressed the UK was "not on the brink of war" but claimed the extra money would put the country's defence industry "on a war footing".
Labour is also committed to a 2.5% target when economic conditions allow.
Labour's shadow defence secretary John Healey said the party "wants to see a fully funded plan" to reach this level, but he said the Tories had "shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted on defence".
He said Labour would review resources for the armed forces within a year of taking office, if it wins the general election later this year.
The prime minister said UK military spending would rise to 2.5% of national income by 2030, in a move that hardens a previous spending pledge.
He stressed the UK was "not on the brink of war" but claimed the extra money would put the country's defence industry "on a war footing".
Labour is also committed to a 2.5% target when economic conditions allow.
Labour's shadow defence secretary John Healey said the party "wants to see a fully funded plan" to reach this level, but he said the Tories had "shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted on defence".
He said Labour would review resources for the armed forces within a year of taking office, if it wins the general election later this year.
I refer members to my earlier statements: post 1320 and F35 II thread post 776
Last edited by SLXOwft; 23rd Apr 2024 at 17:10. Reason: where my remarks are
Thread Starter
Well half the money is apparently going to come from cutting civil servants" - an aspiration that's been around longer than I've been alive..............
It just never happens
It just never happens
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It’s just politics before the next general election.
There are no planned additional funds in this year’s defence budget, so the promised increases will have to be funded by the incoming Labour government, leaving them the problem of where the funds will come from.
Labour shadow ministers have been claiming for months they will match Sunak’s vow to boost defence spending, but both parties have hedged their promises by adding “as soon resources allow”.
By actually committing the money in spending plans Labour will go into the election campaign having to either commit to funding the programme or dodging the question which the Conservatives will exploit.
There are no planned additional funds in this year’s defence budget, so the promised increases will have to be funded by the incoming Labour government, leaving them the problem of where the funds will come from.
Labour shadow ministers have been claiming for months they will match Sunak’s vow to boost defence spending, but both parties have hedged their promises by adding “as soon resources allow”.
By actually committing the money in spending plans Labour will go into the election campaign having to either commit to funding the programme or dodging the question which the Conservatives will exploit.
The following users liked this post:
Trouble is, the ones that leave are the ones that know what they're doing and how to make the system work.
The following 3 users liked this post by Not_a_boffin:
Thread Starter
I agree - same as "voluntary redundancy" in the private sector - all the best take the package because they can get a job elsewhere and you're left with ... the less promising.
But its like "efficiency savings" trotted out every time they don't want to say what they're really going to slash
But its like "efficiency savings" trotted out every time they don't want to say what they're really going to slash
Regarding Sunak's promise/pledge to increase defence spending, I would offer the following observations.
Firstly, as others have already said, he won't be Prime Minister from about September 2024 onward, so he won't have to deliver on anything he says.
Secondly, the articles with more detail seem to talk about the extra expenditure being on MUNITIONS. There is talk of more missiles, shells, bombs, etc.
I've seen nothing about increasing the size of the Army, buying more aircraft, building more ships.
While welcome/necessary, the purchase of more munitions will do little more than replace stock given to Ukraine, and increase our arsenal size to the point where we can fight a full blown war for more than 3 weeks.
Firstly, as others have already said, he won't be Prime Minister from about September 2024 onward, so he won't have to deliver on anything he says.
Secondly, the articles with more detail seem to talk about the extra expenditure being on MUNITIONS. There is talk of more missiles, shells, bombs, etc.
I've seen nothing about increasing the size of the Army, buying more aircraft, building more ships.
While welcome/necessary, the purchase of more munitions will do little more than replace stock given to Ukraine, and increase our arsenal size to the point where we can fight a full blown war for more than 3 weeks.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well we have answer to that question - Labour are refusing to commit to increase the defence budget and will, instead, use the funds to nationalise the railways….
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It's only a "£75 billion increase" over 6 years if you assume that spending would otherwise have been frozen in cash terms for 6 years - i.e. only if the government was, until today, planning to breach its NATO commitments. This is such an unhelpful way to present the figures.
To get the £75 billion number, the government has assumed a baseline with spending frozen in cash terms and then added up all of the differences. If you instead assume a baseline of spending frozen as a % GDP, it's an extra £20 billion over 6 years. Details here.
To make matters worse, when briefing the press the government said that this would "only" cost £4.4 billion in 2028/29. That assumes a baseline of 2.3% of GDP and so is inconsistent with the £75 billion number. They're just picking whichever baseline suits best.
A plea to whoever writes these press releases and social media posts:
1) stop using dodgy baselines
2) stop adding up the "extra" spending over an arbitrary period
3) if you can't do 1) and 2), at least be internally consistent..
To get the £75 billion number, the government has assumed a baseline with spending frozen in cash terms and then added up all of the differences. If you instead assume a baseline of spending frozen as a % GDP, it's an extra £20 billion over 6 years. Details here.
To make matters worse, when briefing the press the government said that this would "only" cost £4.4 billion in 2028/29. That assumes a baseline of 2.3% of GDP and so is inconsistent with the £75 billion number. They're just picking whichever baseline suits best.
A plea to whoever writes these press releases and social media posts:
1) stop using dodgy baselines
2) stop adding up the "extra" spending over an arbitrary period
3) if you can't do 1) and 2), at least be internally consistent..
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
So the U.K. has selected the replacement for the AS-90 artillery we sent to Ukraine, it is a German gunned version of the Boxer which we operate at the moment, it does seem an odd choice in that we have purchased 14 Swedish Archer systems, I wonder if they will be a short term backfill now? Firing up to 9 rounds per minute for the new system will soon eat through the 30 rounds it carries,
It also says develop, so is probably not off the shelf again, and it’s not tracked either.
This announcement was made during a meeting between Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin.
The new-built artillery systems will be constructed in both the UK and Germany, promising to bolster job creation and strengthen the defence manufacturing sectors of both nations, according to the Ministry of Defence.
The collaboration comes at a crucial time as Europe faces renewed security challenges. The system is designed to provide the armed forces of both countries with a significant enhancement in ground warfare capabilities.
Prime Minister Sunak spoke of the importance of the partnership, stating, “The UK and Germany are European powerhouses. Together, we are stronger – whether that is defending against Russian aggression or driving economic growth and technological advance. Today we are opening a new chapter in our relationship, one that will make us safer and more prosperous. At this dangerous moment for the world, the UK and Germany are standing side by side to preserve security and prosperity at home and across our continent.”
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/brit...llery-systems/
It also says develop, so is probably not off the shelf again, and it’s not tracked either.
The UK and Germany have unveiled plans to jointly develop the Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155mm Wheeled Artillery System (RCH 155), which will be mounted on Boxer armoured vehicles.
on Boxer armoured vehicles.
This announcement was made during a meeting between Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin.
The new-built artillery systems will be constructed in both the UK and Germany, promising to bolster job creation and strengthen the defence manufacturing sectors of both nations, according to the Ministry of Defence.
The collaboration comes at a crucial time as Europe faces renewed security challenges. The system is designed to provide the armed forces of both countries with a significant enhancement in ground warfare capabilities.
Prime Minister Sunak spoke of the importance of the partnership, stating, “The UK and Germany are European powerhouses. Together, we are stronger – whether that is defending against Russian aggression or driving economic growth and technological advance. Today we are opening a new chapter in our relationship, one that will make us safer and more prosperous. At this dangerous moment for the world, the UK and Germany are standing side by side to preserve security and prosperity at home and across our continent.”
So the U.K. has selected the replacement for the AS-90 artillery we sent to Ukraine, it is a German gunned version of the Boxer which we operate at the moment, it does seem an odd choice in that we have purchased 14 Swedish Archer systems, I wonder if they will be a short term backfill now?
I love that the Maily Telegraph's response isn't to in any way scrutinise the facts of what's been announced, or to mention that this was announced by Johnson in 2022, after which, to gasps of shock from everyone, defence spending reduced. Instead it's to somehow suggest that everything is Labour's fault. Utterly delusional...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
QinetiQ has successfully trialled the UK’s first Crewed-Uncrewed-Teaming demonstration between a crewed aircraft and an autonomous jet drone.
The trial – which took place in collaboration with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), the Royal Navy and the Air and Space Warfare Centre (ASWC) - saw a QinetiQ jet aircraft take off from Ministry of Defence (MOD) site Boscombe Down in Salisbury, while a modified Banshee Jet 80 drone was launched from the MOD Hebrides range, off the north-west coast of Scotland.
Commodore Steve Bolton, Deputy Director Aviation Programmes & Futures, said:
"I am delighted with the results of this trial. The development of Crewed–Uncrewed Teaming, as one of the Royal Navy’s many aviation transformation initiatives, seeks to embrace the onset of autonomy and Human Machine Teaming, to expand our aviation combat mass and operational advantage at sea."
The trial – which took place in collaboration with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), the Royal Navy and the Air and Space Warfare Centre (ASWC) - saw a QinetiQ jet aircraft take off from Ministry of Defence (MOD) site Boscombe Down in Salisbury, while a modified Banshee Jet 80 drone was launched from the MOD Hebrides range, off the north-west coast of Scotland.
Commodore Steve Bolton, Deputy Director Aviation Programmes & Futures, said:
"I am delighted with the results of this trial. The development of Crewed–Uncrewed Teaming, as one of the Royal Navy’s many aviation transformation initiatives, seeks to embrace the onset of autonomy and Human Machine Teaming, to expand our aviation combat mass and operational advantage at sea."
Today, America prizes air superiority in its approach to warfare, but there's a growing sentiment among many within the defense apparatus that dogfights, or close-quarters air-air combat are things of the past
Given that dogfights are increasingly unlikely I find it difficult to be persuaded that small expensive agile fighters - F35 - are needed.
Surely larger less agile ( cheaper ) still stealthy aircraft carrying more weapons and sensors -and able to stay on task for much longer - could win the over the horizon air battle and thus achieve air superiority ?
They could also keep further away from the ever more sophisticated ground to air defences?
Hopefully great minds are worrying about this ( and the Question of whether drones can replace manned aircraft ) but with money short and an increase in defence spending looming the more discussion on defence expenditure the better.
I fear that inter service rivalry ( Navy Carriers for instance ) and selfish interests still influence important and costly decisions.
Put this on F35 thread also - sorry for repetition but I am sure that many Army and Navy big ticket future purchases are worthy of maximum discussion before the money is spent!
Given that dogfights are increasingly unlikely I find it difficult to be persuaded that small expensive agile fighters - F35 - are needed.
Surely larger less agile ( cheaper ) still stealthy aircraft carrying more weapons and sensors -and able to stay on task for much longer - could win the over the horizon air battle and thus achieve air superiority ?
They could also keep further away from the ever more sophisticated ground to air defences?
Hopefully great minds are worrying about this ( and the Question of whether drones can replace manned aircraft ) but with money short and an increase in defence spending looming the more discussion on defence expenditure the better.
I fear that inter service rivalry ( Navy Carriers for instance ) and selfish interests still influence important and costly decisions.
Put this on F35 thread also - sorry for repetition but I am sure that many Army and Navy big ticket future purchases are worthy of maximum discussion before the money is spent!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Several points for you to consider.
In peacetime the main task is to intercept, identify and escort intruders, lost airliners etc - a task best served by an interceptor sized aircraft.
In war BVR can be constrained by ROE meaning a possible target has to be identified, either visually or by other means; and if they are hostile a bomber sized aircraft will be detected, identified by them first if they are smaller and able to give their weapon a height and speed advantage.
Bigger means less numbers and if the enem6 split up, use height splits, ECM etc the chances of a single large missile carrier achieving kills plummets.
“Missileer” aircraft were looked at during the Cold War by the USN* and the RAF briefly considered a Vulcan carrying Phoenix or Sea Dart** missiles etc, but none proceeded past the concept stage once modelling showed they lost out vs more fighters.
The US NGAD and FA-XX will be larger to be able to deal with trans-pacific ranges and mother aircraft carrying CCAs to the combat zone may appear, but I don’t see Missileer sun the mix.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer
** https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thr...can-adv.17083/
In peacetime the main task is to intercept, identify and escort intruders, lost airliners etc - a task best served by an interceptor sized aircraft.
In war BVR can be constrained by ROE meaning a possible target has to be identified, either visually or by other means; and if they are hostile a bomber sized aircraft will be detected, identified by them first if they are smaller and able to give their weapon a height and speed advantage.
Bigger means less numbers and if the enem6 split up, use height splits, ECM etc the chances of a single large missile carrier achieving kills plummets.
“Missileer” aircraft were looked at during the Cold War by the USN* and the RAF briefly considered a Vulcan carrying Phoenix or Sea Dart** missiles etc, but none proceeded past the concept stage once modelling showed they lost out vs more fighters.
The US NGAD and FA-XX will be larger to be able to deal with trans-pacific ranges and mother aircraft carrying CCAs to the combat zone may appear, but I don’t see Missileer sun the mix.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer
** https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thr...can-adv.17083/
Given that dogfights are increasingly unlikely I find it difficult to be persuaded that small expensive agile fighters - F35 - are needed.
Surely larger less agile ( cheaper ) still stealthy aircraft carrying more weapons and sensors -and able to stay on task for much longer - could win the over the horizon air battle and thus achieve air superiority ?
They could also keep further away from the ever more sophisticated ground to air defences?
Hopefully great minds are worrying about this
Surely larger less agile ( cheaper ) still stealthy aircraft carrying more weapons and sensors -and able to stay on task for much longer - could win the over the horizon air battle and thus achieve air superiority ?
They could also keep further away from the ever more sophisticated ground to air defences?
Hopefully great minds are worrying about this
ORAC
In peacetime the main task is to intercept, identify and escort intruders, lost airliners etc - a task best served by an interceptor sized aircraft.
understood but we have the Typhoon for this task
In peacetime the main task is to intercept, identify and escort intruders, lost airliners etc - a task best served by an interceptor sized aircraft.
understood but we have the Typhoon for this task
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
understood but we have the Typhoon for this task
The Tempest is sized for the long range interceptor role both for the UK, and because that is also exactly what Japan is interested in acquiring, so its size reflects the original role rather than that of the Eurofighter as a CR dogfighter.