UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,755
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
Hope you will be ok Bob at the end of this.
Nutty
Jack’s alright. Don’t worry about me!
BV
PS. I should add that I’ve been on the receiving end of a premature cut before (it sucks). In fact I still feel the impact, since my house purchasing history was hugely affected by it and it’s possible I would be significantly better off now if things had happened differently. But I don’t like to live in the past.
BV
PS. I should add that I’ve been on the receiving end of a premature cut before (it sucks). In fact I still feel the impact, since my house purchasing history was hugely affected by it and it’s possible I would be significantly better off now if things had happened differently. But I don’t like to live in the past.
Thread Starter
I found both last weeks review and this weeks paper to be very glossy , lots of nice pictures but ... try finding any FACTS in them..............
the gory detail of actual dates and numbers is missing in so many cases - look at page 45 - lots of nice symbols and not a single number or date
I guess if they'd published a NOW and 2023, 2025, 2030, 2040 force levels in detail the cat would be right out of the bag
the gory detail of actual dates and numbers is missing in so many cases - look at page 45 - lots of nice symbols and not a single number or date
I guess if they'd published a NOW and 2023, 2025, 2030, 2040 force levels in detail the cat would be right out of the bag
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Sir Humphrey at The ThinPinStrippedLine..
https://tinyurl.com/ey577b6d
“It Reads Like Daleks Speaking at a Management Consultancy Conference” - Thoughts on the Defence Review Paper
The MOD has published its long awaited Defence Review document, intended to support the findings of the Integrated Review, published on Mon 15 March. The new MOD document sets out the role of the armed forces in trying to deliver the Defence part of this strategy.
The document is designed to set out what Defence will do, how it will do it and with what equipment and forces against various roles. On paper this is supposed to be the biggest change to the British Armed Forces since the Cold War.
Does it work though, or is it missing something?
To be honest, this is an extremely difficult blog to write. Since 2011 the whole purpose of the ThinPinstripedLine blog has been to offer positive commentary on defence issues and approaching things from the perspective that difficult decisions must be made, often for good reason, and that this isn’t always obvious to the outsider. The site has attracted a lot of attention and at times abuse, for trying to give the MOD the benefit of the doubt, and in trying to provide positive support and context.
The problem that the author has with this report is that it feels very thin on the ground, and that it is hard to defend or put a positive spin on something that is so markedly lacking in detail......
https://tinyurl.com/ey577b6d
“It Reads Like Daleks Speaking at a Management Consultancy Conference” - Thoughts on the Defence Review Paper
The MOD has published its long awaited Defence Review document, intended to support the findings of the Integrated Review, published on Mon 15 March. The new MOD document sets out the role of the armed forces in trying to deliver the Defence part of this strategy.
The document is designed to set out what Defence will do, how it will do it and with what equipment and forces against various roles. On paper this is supposed to be the biggest change to the British Armed Forces since the Cold War.
Does it work though, or is it missing something?
To be honest, this is an extremely difficult blog to write. Since 2011 the whole purpose of the ThinPinstripedLine blog has been to offer positive commentary on defence issues and approaching things from the perspective that difficult decisions must be made, often for good reason, and that this isn’t always obvious to the outsider. The site has attracted a lot of attention and at times abuse, for trying to give the MOD the benefit of the doubt, and in trying to provide positive support and context.
The problem that the author has with this report is that it feels very thin on the ground, and that it is hard to defend or put a positive spin on something that is so markedly lacking in detail......
Last edited by ORAC; 23rd Mar 2021 at 15:13.
Interesting that the MOD and politically correct senior officers think that boots on ground can be replaced with drones. Are drones going to help local communities fill sandbags when flooding occurs? Are drones going to help the NHS with giving vaccinations? Are drones going to help the police keep order during protests, insurrection or strikes? One of the tasks of the armed forces is help for the local community. The Green Goddesses were scrapped years ago, now people are going the same way.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,755
Received 2,740 Likes
on
1,166 Posts
The Army is also retiring its oldest CH-47 Chinook helicopters, with the US investing in newer variants of the aircraft, which will enhance “capability, efficiency and interoperability”. The AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopters will be upgraded by 2025 and investment in a new medium lift helicopter in the mid-2020s, consolidating the fleet of medium lift helicopters from four types to one; including the replacement of Puma. The Army will also retain and upgrade Watchkeeper, an uncrewed aircraft system.
Danielle Sheridan - The Telegraph - 22 March 2021
Danielle Sheridan - The Telegraph - 22 March 2021
BN to the RAF museum??
As Davef68 said (briefly), this stuff was in the actual report. Here's what it says:
It utterly boggles my mind that this is a direct quote from a government published paper, called "A Corporate Report", on what it describes as
Is there no one in that part of the MoD who understands things like the Joint Helicopter Command, which is, of course, tri-service?
Bogglingly
airsound
7.39.The Army is retiring its oldest CH-47 Chinook helicopters and investing, alongside the US, in newer variants of this operationally proven aircraft, enhancing capability, efficiency and interoperability....... Investment in a new medium lift helicopter in the mid-2020s will enable a consolidation of the Army’s disparate fleet of medium lift helicopters from four platform types to one; including the replacement of Puma.
Defence's contribution to the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy.
Bogglingly
airsound
"Ownership" is an interesting concept these days.
Do the Chinooks "belong" to the RAF and if so, why? Is it because they are flown (predominantly) by the RAF? Or because the DDH is RAF (the ODH is rotational)? Perhaps because the RTSA is RAF? Or just because they have RAF painted on the side?
Do they belong to the Army because the Army pays for them? Certainly the Army is paying for the replacements (out of money voted to it from the Centre). As AirSound points out, the JHC is tri-service, which is to say it employs personnel from all three services, but it is "owned" by the Army (in that the Army pays all the bills). So the decision to retire any Chinooks must come from the Army, does this infer ownership?
A similar set of questions could be asked of the Lightning II force, but I won't!
Nick
Do the Chinooks "belong" to the RAF and if so, why? Is it because they are flown (predominantly) by the RAF? Or because the DDH is RAF (the ODH is rotational)? Perhaps because the RTSA is RAF? Or just because they have RAF painted on the side?
Do they belong to the Army because the Army pays for them? Certainly the Army is paying for the replacements (out of money voted to it from the Centre). As AirSound points out, the JHC is tri-service, which is to say it employs personnel from all three services, but it is "owned" by the Army (in that the Army pays all the bills). So the decision to retire any Chinooks must come from the Army, does this infer ownership?
A similar set of questions could be asked of the Lightning II force, but I won't!
Nick
Last edited by Nicholas Howard; 23rd Mar 2021 at 14:53.
The First Sea Lord has said during a webcast that the UK intends to purchase ‘around 60’ F-35B jets and then ‘maybe more up to around 80’ for four deployable squadrons.The total of 80 is welcome news given the speculation the buy could be capped at 48.
A defence insider informed the UK Defence Journal of a live wbecast given today by the First Sea Lord.
“The First Sea Lord has just said 60 F-35, then maybe more up to around 80 for 4 deployable squadrons.”
A defence insider informed the UK Defence Journal of a live wbecast given today by the First Sea Lord.
“The First Sea Lord has just said 60 F-35, then maybe more up to around 80 for 4 deployable squadrons.”
2 F-35B in LRIP run 3, 1 F-35B in LRIP run 4, 1 F-35B in LRIP run 7, 4 F-35B in LRIP run 8, 6 F-35B in LRIP run 9, 3 F-35B in LRIP run 10, 2 F-35B in LRIP run 11, 2 F-35B in LRIP run 12 6 F-35B in LRIP run 13, 8 F-35B in LRIP run 14 and 7 F-35B in LRIP run 15.
This brings us to 42 in 2023.
This brings us to 42 in 2023.
Thread Starter
"The First Sea Lord has said during a webcast that the UK intends to purchase ‘around 60’ F-35B jets and then ‘maybe more up to around 80’
Ahhh - an "intention" - somewhat stronger than an "aspiration" but a very long way from a "promise"
Ahhh - an "intention" - somewhat stronger than an "aspiration" but a very long way from a "promise"
Thread Starter
Thanks ORAC - it actually was entitled (accurately) as
""It Reads Like Daleks Speaking At A Management Consultancy Conference"
""It Reads Like Daleks Speaking At A Management Consultancy Conference"
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Source today: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-l...80-f-35b-jets/