UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Finningley Boy - I agree, that's why I called them daft but the general short-sightedness of politicians and their advisers would make it possible. Their horizon is the next election if we are lucky. Defence is an insurance against what is normally highly unlikely risk but the mind set is when did you last use it or why aren't you using it now. I take my hat off to those who have, in recent years, made a ridiculous level of air ops v resources work. From a naval perspective I can't understand why ships are sold off or scrapped on decommissioning, we used to have the Standby Squadron - unlikely to be needed but we did in '82 (yes, I know it was 38 years ago). With airfields the current vogue is sell them off and build on them - the concept of care and maintenance for possible future expansion is beyond their comprehension. Some were saved for the Army by the pull-out from Germany but that's over. I worry about the vulnerability of all the eggs in one basket. The problem is the important things are often intangible assets and can't be given a realistic financial value. This obviously reveals me to be one of those Sir Humphrey dismisses. British governments slashing defence expenditure and being caught out by believing war can't happen again has been going on since 1814 and probably long before. Since 1995 to the best of my knowledge the RAF, RN and AAC have all lost the use of more airfields than they know have many of which couldn't be brought back into service. Its acceptable to sell of the national assets rather than increasing revenue because taxation has become taboo. No party is willing to confront the fact that middle income earners in the UK are grossly under taxed in comparison to similar countries.
To say Defence doesn't adapt to changing needs is not true . Typhoon started off under as a replacement for Harrier and Jaguar but turned into an Air Superiority Fighter which has been adapted to a Jaguar & Tornado replacement. The SHAR replacement FCBA became FJCA when Harrier 7/9 replacement was added so we ended up with F-35B not A & C. However, I am not convinced multirole is cheaper than single role in the long run. It is a law of projects that late changes to requirements are exponentially more costly than early changes.
One wild thought, is the division of Officers/WOs/NCOs/Other ranks still fit for purpose in the 21st century? Surely the officer body is no longer confined to the aristocracy and gentry with their need to reflect a sense of superiority. I believe the police all start as beat constables? AAC pilots are not exclusively officers. Retires having lit the blue touch paper.
To say Defence doesn't adapt to changing needs is not true . Typhoon started off under as a replacement for Harrier and Jaguar but turned into an Air Superiority Fighter which has been adapted to a Jaguar & Tornado replacement. The SHAR replacement FCBA became FJCA when Harrier 7/9 replacement was added so we ended up with F-35B not A & C. However, I am not convinced multirole is cheaper than single role in the long run. It is a law of projects that late changes to requirements are exponentially more costly than early changes.
One wild thought, is the division of Officers/WOs/NCOs/Other ranks still fit for purpose in the 21st century? Surely the officer body is no longer confined to the aristocracy and gentry with their need to reflect a sense of superiority. I believe the police all start as beat constables? AAC pilots are not exclusively officers. Retires having lit the blue touch paper.
FB
Door Slider - thanks I forgot about the scheme. However suitability is based on outside supervisory experience - hard to think of direct equivalence but salary wise like starting as a junior squadron leader and higher than a WO. Starting as an officer is not dependent on similar experience. Now that would be radical thinking.
The Chiefs of Staff better be very well prepared and at their sharpest - he appears to have no respect for experience or rank especially if his interlocutors don't share his point of view.
I do wonder if Cummings would have got DV clearance if he had been in a normal government job, his public persona suggests he may have done something that makes him vulnerable but hasn't seen it as such himself. I would be suprised if the Russians didn't try to recruit him when he worked there (or at least think about it), I would assume this has been carefully investigated.. Even so, I think his Russophilia should be of concern, he is clearly someone who believes he is always right and thus may dismiss any threat analysis of Russia he disagrees with.
A protege of Prof. Norman Stone, he was compared to Robespierre by another of his Oxford tutors, quoted in the New Statesmen, in that he is "someone determined to bring down things that don’t work", however I fear like Robespierre his self belief and disdain for counterviews will lead to the throwing out of the baby with the bath water. The problem with Cummings is he has some good ideas, is highly intelligent and a forceful communicator but I suspect has little or no respect for other beliefs or ideas that contradict his own.
He is a fan of the IDF's Talpiot programme: "Graduates pursue double higher education while they serve in the army, and they use their expertise to further IDF research and development in technological leadership positions."
If you want some insight into how he thinks try this he wrote in 2013:
Dominic Cummings: Some Thoughts On Education
Early on he reveals his contempt for the education and abilities of our elected representatives. I don't think he has much respect for those who head large organizations be they business, government departments or armed services as he believes the systems ensure most of those selected are incompetent.
From my limited reading, he appears obsessed with benefits of education based on science, technology and maths (particularly statisitics) and overturning the comfortable metropolitan elite. I am not sure if he sees the irony of this being propounded by an arts graduate produced by private school and Oxford, who is a scientific autodidact. Mind you he's from Durham so he isn't metropolitan
.
This quote struck me:
(I fear the Chinese have to a great extent already done this.)
I also fear his obsession with technology blinds him to the continuing need for conventional armed forces.
The Chiefs of Staff better be very well prepared and at their sharpest - he appears to have no respect for experience or rank especially if his interlocutors don't share his point of view.
I do wonder if Cummings would have got DV clearance if he had been in a normal government job, his public persona suggests he may have done something that makes him vulnerable but hasn't seen it as such himself. I would be suprised if the Russians didn't try to recruit him when he worked there (or at least think about it), I would assume this has been carefully investigated.. Even so, I think his Russophilia should be of concern, he is clearly someone who believes he is always right and thus may dismiss any threat analysis of Russia he disagrees with.
A protege of Prof. Norman Stone, he was compared to Robespierre by another of his Oxford tutors, quoted in the New Statesmen, in that he is "someone determined to bring down things that don’t work", however I fear like Robespierre his self belief and disdain for counterviews will lead to the throwing out of the baby with the bath water. The problem with Cummings is he has some good ideas, is highly intelligent and a forceful communicator but I suspect has little or no respect for other beliefs or ideas that contradict his own.
He is a fan of the IDF's Talpiot programme: "Graduates pursue double higher education while they serve in the army, and they use their expertise to further IDF research and development in technological leadership positions."
If you want some insight into how he thinks try this he wrote in 2013:
Dominic Cummings: Some Thoughts On Education
Early on he reveals his contempt for the education and abilities of our elected representatives. I don't think he has much respect for those who head large organizations be they business, government departments or armed services as he believes the systems ensure most of those selected are incompetent.
From my limited reading, he appears obsessed with benefits of education based on science, technology and maths (particularly statisitics) and overturning the comfortable metropolitan elite. I am not sure if he sees the irony of this being propounded by an arts graduate produced by private school and Oxford, who is a scientific autodidact. Mind you he's from Durham so he isn't metropolitan
.This quote struck me:
"Given that intelligent adversaries aim to implement Sun Tzu’s dictum ‘to win without fighting is the highest form of war’, cyberwar and other advanced technologies offer obvious possibilities for ‘winning’ by destroying an adversary’s desire, or ability, to oppose - without conventional conflict and even without any obvious evidence"
I also fear his obsession with technology blinds him to the continuing need for conventional armed forces.
Last edited by SLXOwft; 9th Jul 2020 at 19:25.
I shudder to think where the armed forces of this country will at the end of 2014. Then again the country in general. Not nice to see the tin pot Essex ex part timer shouting his mouth off again.
Thread Starter
Time passes slower in Norfolk..................
Thread Starter
The Commons PAC having another go https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53411966MPs have accused the Ministry of Defence of a "lamentable" failure to properly fund new military equipment required for the armed forces.
The Public Accounts Committee said it was "extremely frustrated" that the MoD had still not made the hard choices needed to plug a £13bn funding gap. The warning comes ahead of a government review which is expected to overhaul defence procurement. The MoD said it was committed to securing the best equipment.
n a highly critical report, the Public Accounts Committee - which examines public spending - expressed "extreme" frustration that "we see the same problems year after year". The MPs accused the MoD of failing to make the "hard choices" necessary to plug a gap of up to £13bn pounds in the current equipment programme.
"The government has still not taken the strategic decisions required to establish an affordable equipment plan and deliver the crucial military capabilities needed by our armed forces. The department's lamentable failure to get a grip on the equipment plan continues, despite this committee and the NAO [National Audit Office] consistently highlighting serious affordability issues in the plan year after year."
Committee chair Meg Hillier said: "The MoD knows what it's getting wrong. We know what it's getting wrong. For years, we have made concrete proposals to improve delivery of key strategic priorities and here we are again, with the same gaps in our national defence and the same risk to our armed forces personnel, year after year."
Conservative MP Mark Francois recently warned General Sir Nick Carter, chief of the defence staff, that he should "nip back to the department and ask them to sort their bloody selves out, because if not, Cummings is going to come down there and sort you out his own way, and you won't like it." The prime minister's chief advisor, Dominic Cummings has been a harsh critic of defence procurement in the past.
The government has said its new integrated defence and security review - due to be completed next year - would seek "innovative ways" to promote UK interests while committing to spending targets.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "As the committee acknowledges, managing complex defence programmes can be challenging and we continue to reduce the gap between our budget and predicted costs, achieving £7.8 billion of efficiency savings last year and securing an extra £2.2 billion for defence."
MoD sound like rabbits frozen in the headlights of the oncoming changes - worst thing is they are burning any credibility with MP's
The Public Accounts Committee said it was "extremely frustrated" that the MoD had still not made the hard choices needed to plug a £13bn funding gap. The warning comes ahead of a government review which is expected to overhaul defence procurement. The MoD said it was committed to securing the best equipment.
n a highly critical report, the Public Accounts Committee - which examines public spending - expressed "extreme" frustration that "we see the same problems year after year". The MPs accused the MoD of failing to make the "hard choices" necessary to plug a gap of up to £13bn pounds in the current equipment programme.
"The government has still not taken the strategic decisions required to establish an affordable equipment plan and deliver the crucial military capabilities needed by our armed forces. The department's lamentable failure to get a grip on the equipment plan continues, despite this committee and the NAO [National Audit Office] consistently highlighting serious affordability issues in the plan year after year."
Committee chair Meg Hillier said: "The MoD knows what it's getting wrong. We know what it's getting wrong. For years, we have made concrete proposals to improve delivery of key strategic priorities and here we are again, with the same gaps in our national defence and the same risk to our armed forces personnel, year after year."
Conservative MP Mark Francois recently warned General Sir Nick Carter, chief of the defence staff, that he should "nip back to the department and ask them to sort their bloody selves out, because if not, Cummings is going to come down there and sort you out his own way, and you won't like it." The prime minister's chief advisor, Dominic Cummings has been a harsh critic of defence procurement in the past.
The government has said its new integrated defence and security review - due to be completed next year - would seek "innovative ways" to promote UK interests while committing to spending targets.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "As the committee acknowledges, managing complex defence programmes can be challenging and we continue to reduce the gap between our budget and predicted costs, achieving £7.8 billion of efficiency savings last year and securing an extra £2.2 billion for defence."
MoD sound like rabbits frozen in the headlights of the oncoming changes - worst thing is they are burning any credibility with MP's
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is absolutley nothing new in any of this. I recall an interview on the radio with Michael Mates (ex Tory MP and Chairman of the Defence Select Committee 1987 - 1992) pretty much saying the exact same things in the late eighties. It was ever thus and it always will be. Dominc Cummings won't change anything because every British government (of every flavour) expects the military to pitch up and do every job it is asked to, whether or not they have the tools and manpower to do so.
Until that changes (don't hold your breath) Governments will tolerate it little "overspend" here and there...they'll just make a lot of noise and little comestic adjustment every one in while and now is one of those times.
If Cummings gets involved, just grap the popcorn and enjoy the show.
Until that changes (don't hold your breath) Governments will tolerate it little "overspend" here and there...they'll just make a lot of noise and little comestic adjustment every one in while and now is one of those times.
If Cummings gets involved, just grap the popcorn and enjoy the show.
Thread Starter
I see we appear to have avoided the amusing sight of Mr Grayling in charge of "intelligence" in the UK parliament................ pity really - - we need a good laugh in these troubled times
Apparently Cummings is not too keen on the carriers, for this he gets an extraordinary thumbs up from Richard Norton-Taylor, former defence correspondent for the Guardian.
FB
FB
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: middle earth
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Predictions As the article suggests:
Scrap C130J - leave to a400m and take capability gap on all disciplines the a400m cannot yet complete ( stores/ Para/ boats/)
Scrap Puma ( rely on chinook)
Also:
Scrap Sentinel- Pointless , and the UOR is over. No longer required
Scrap E3D- they never fly anyway. Waste of money.
Scrap C17- leave to a400M. They are on their backsides with fatigue anyway,
Aircrews and support staff from all above fleets- voluntary redundancy. cash saved!
For anyone reading this who thinks the MOD “would be utterly mad to scrap an entire platform which solely provides a critically important capability”
-Wind the clock back 10 years or so to SDSR 2010 and you have your answer. No one platform is safe.
Scrap C130J - leave to a400m and take capability gap on all disciplines the a400m cannot yet complete ( stores/ Para/ boats/)
Scrap Puma ( rely on chinook)
Also:
Scrap Sentinel- Pointless , and the UOR is over. No longer required
Scrap E3D- they never fly anyway. Waste of money.
Scrap C17- leave to a400M. They are on their backsides with fatigue anyway,
Aircrews and support staff from all above fleets- voluntary redundancy. cash saved!
For anyone reading this who thinks the MOD “would be utterly mad to scrap an entire platform which solely provides a critically important capability”
-Wind the clock back 10 years or so to SDSR 2010 and you have your answer. No one platform is safe.
Predictions As the article suggests:
Scrap C130J - leave to a400m and take capability gap on all disciplines the a400m cannot yet complete ( stores/ Para/ boats/)
Scrap Puma ( rely on chinook)
Also:
Scrap Sentinel- Pointless , and the UOR is over. No longer required
Scrap E3D- they never fly anyway. Waste of money.
Scrap C17- leave to a400M. They are on their backsides with fatigue anyway,
Aircrews and support staff from all above fleets- voluntary redundancy. cash saved!
For anyone reading this who thinks the MOD “would be utterly mad to scrap an entire platform which solely provides a critically important capability”
-Wind the clock back 10 years or so to SDSR 2010 and you have your answer. No one platform is safe.
Scrap C130J - leave to a400m and take capability gap on all disciplines the a400m cannot yet complete ( stores/ Para/ boats/)
Scrap Puma ( rely on chinook)
Also:
Scrap Sentinel- Pointless , and the UOR is over. No longer required
Scrap E3D- they never fly anyway. Waste of money.
Scrap C17- leave to a400M. They are on their backsides with fatigue anyway,
Aircrews and support staff from all above fleets- voluntary redundancy. cash saved!
For anyone reading this who thinks the MOD “would be utterly mad to scrap an entire platform which solely provides a critically important capability”
-Wind the clock back 10 years or so to SDSR 2010 and you have your answer. No one platform is safe.
C130J - Primary customer may have an input as they were rather left in limbo back in the day when the RAF’s answer was to keep dragging out the C130K OSD and take the savings on the C130J development. With J Vs A400, there are certain missions were size and capability are perfect for one type over the other. Looking forward to finding out who wins.
Puma: Again, it’s an argument for medium lift SH Vs expensive heavy lift. Personally, I think we need medium lift. I don’t necessarily think Puma 2 is the answer but I definitely don’t think Wildcat is.
Sentinel: Was not originally a UOR. It was a Core Program but the post-2010 austerity measures saw a quick way to kill it quietly. All I will say is that I don’t think MOD has a true replacement for its capabilities. RPAS have the loiter but not the speed and height. Satellites have the height but not the persistence over an area. I agree I don’t think it will survive the next review. However I wholeheartedly disagree that it is pointless and I think it’ll be a case of you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone.
E3D: If we scrap it, then we need to find another way to contribute to NATO ISR whether that’s cash (which we don’t have) or contributing via other means. However, I can’t remember the last time I read about it being deployed on Ops...
C17: You’ll always need to be able to move outsize or lots of cargo somewhere. If it’s simply doing cargo hops between MOBs and non-austere FOBs then fatigue can be managed. Do we need as many as we have now though? I don’t know.
Defender / D4K: Does the RAF really need to take on another AS whose capabilities are duplicated by an already in service type (Shadow)? Would it not be better to contractorise the D4K role?
Watchkeeper: I really can’t understand why we keep proceeding with it. I don’t mean to sound nasty but perhaps someone on the forum could give an answer on why it’s so important?
Finally, I can imagine Manning is rubbing it’s hands with glee about all those ISR crew, engineers and Spt staff it could post to P8 at Lossiemouth if Sentinel, E3D and D4K were to be wound up!
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: middle earth
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howdo KBW. My predictions based on your arguments and not withstanding the ‘No AS is too important to cut’:
C130J - Primary customer may have an input as they were rather left in limbo back in the day when the RAF’s answer was to keep dragging out the C130K OSD and take the savings on the C130J development. With J Vs A400, there are certain missions were size and capability are perfect for one type over the other. Looking forward to finding out who wins.
Puma: Again, it’s an argument for medium lift SH Vs expensive heavy lift. Personally, I think we need medium lift. I don’t necessarily think Puma 2 is the answer but I definitely don’t think Wildcat is.
Sentinel: Was not originally a UOR. It was a Core Program but the post-2010 austerity measures saw a quick way to kill it quietly. All I will say is that I don’t think MOD has a true replacement for its capabilities. RPAS have the loiter but not the speed and height. Satellites have the height but not the persistence over an area. I agree I don’t think it will survive the next review. However I wholeheartedly disagree that it is pointless and I think it’ll be a case of you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone.
E3D: If we scrap it, then we need to find another way to contribute to NATO ISR whether that’s cash (which we don’t have) or contributing via other means. However, I can’t remember the last time I read about it being deployed on Ops...
C17: You’ll always need to be able to move outsize or lots of cargo somewhere. If it’s simply doing cargo hops between MOBs and non-austere FOBs then fatigue can be managed. Do we need as many as we have now though? I don’t know.
Defender / D4K: Does the RAF really need to take on another AS whose capabilities are duplicated by an already in service type (Shadow)? Would it not be better to contractorise the D4K role?
Watchkeeper: I really can’t understand why we keep proceeding with it. I don’t mean to sound nasty but perhaps someone on the forum could give an answer on why it’s so important?
Finally, I can imagine Manning is rubbing it’s hands with glee about all those ISR crew, engineers and Spt staff it could post to P8 at Lossiemouth if Sentinel, E3D and D4K were to be wound up!
C130J - Primary customer may have an input as they were rather left in limbo back in the day when the RAF’s answer was to keep dragging out the C130K OSD and take the savings on the C130J development. With J Vs A400, there are certain missions were size and capability are perfect for one type over the other. Looking forward to finding out who wins.
Puma: Again, it’s an argument for medium lift SH Vs expensive heavy lift. Personally, I think we need medium lift. I don’t necessarily think Puma 2 is the answer but I definitely don’t think Wildcat is.
Sentinel: Was not originally a UOR. It was a Core Program but the post-2010 austerity measures saw a quick way to kill it quietly. All I will say is that I don’t think MOD has a true replacement for its capabilities. RPAS have the loiter but not the speed and height. Satellites have the height but not the persistence over an area. I agree I don’t think it will survive the next review. However I wholeheartedly disagree that it is pointless and I think it’ll be a case of you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone.
E3D: If we scrap it, then we need to find another way to contribute to NATO ISR whether that’s cash (which we don’t have) or contributing via other means. However, I can’t remember the last time I read about it being deployed on Ops...
C17: You’ll always need to be able to move outsize or lots of cargo somewhere. If it’s simply doing cargo hops between MOBs and non-austere FOBs then fatigue can be managed. Do we need as many as we have now though? I don’t know.
Defender / D4K: Does the RAF really need to take on another AS whose capabilities are duplicated by an already in service type (Shadow)? Would it not be better to contractorise the D4K role?
Watchkeeper: I really can’t understand why we keep proceeding with it. I don’t mean to sound nasty but perhaps someone on the forum could give an answer on why it’s so important?
Finally, I can imagine Manning is rubbing it’s hands with glee about all those ISR crew, engineers and Spt staff it could post to P8 at Lossiemouth if Sentinel, E3D and D4K were to be wound up!
Hi SVK,
Ref E3-D Im sure MOD have purchased some E7 Wedgetail... but we shall see when they materialise.... (if at all)
We could live without C17 and use Antonov charter for outsize- I believe fatigue/hours wise the UK are the fleet leaders, so it could make financial sense to release the taxpayer of that burden.
OOHHHHHHH! I like your thinking there- Instant P8 manning issues solved!! that would be a massive win for manning you're spot on
hopefully no one sees this at manning and isnt already stacking up posting notices in JPA workflows ready!!!!"Pack your bags... you're off to ISL " < right in the pills.
Last edited by KBW10101; 18th Jul 2020 at 09:40. Reason: spelling mistakes
The deal to buy 5 x E-7 Wedgetail for $1.98 Billion (GBP 1.5 Billion at the time - nearer GBP 1.57 Billion now) was signed in March 2019.
Announcement here:
https://www.forces.net/news/technolo...-purchase-e-7s
Announcement here:
https://www.forces.net/news/technolo...-purchase-e-7s
The deal to buy 5 x E-7 Wedgetail for $1.98 Billion (GBP 1.5 Billion at the time - nearer GBP 1.57 Billion now) was signed in March 2019.
Announcement here:
https://www.forces.net/news/technolo...-purchase-e-7s
Announcement here:
https://www.forces.net/news/technolo...-purchase-e-7s
FB
There will undoubtedly be some analysis done by Dstl to show the relative merits of different blends of A and B models, taking into account everything from maintenance and spares issues affecting a mixed fleet through to the differences in operational effectiveness due to basing options, air refuelling compatibility, combat radius and weapon load. I dare say it will be possible for the likes of Tobias Ellwood so draw some reasonably straightforward conclusions from all of that. But all that work (which the purely military perspective would like to think definitive) is likely to form only a small part of any decision. Presentational RAF v RN considerations will probably play in, but the UK’s greater industrial work share in the B is very likely to be its trump card with politicians. The aforementioned analysis would have to be very compelling in the A’s favour to overcome that.
Also, do you remember when the Germans bid up the number of Typhoons they’d buy ahead of the work share agreement, only to cut it afterwards? And all the bumping of gums that ensued in the UK? That’s going to be us on F35 in due course, I reckon. I can’t see how we possibly get to 138 while doing Tempest as well.
Also, do you remember when the Germans bid up the number of Typhoons they’d buy ahead of the work share agreement, only to cut it afterwards? And all the bumping of gums that ensued in the UK? That’s going to be us on F35 in due course, I reckon. I can’t see how we possibly get to 138 while doing Tempest as well.