UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Thread Starter
whatever we have we won't have enough of it for sure
Originally Posted by ORAC;11099241
[color=#333333
[color=#333333
The frustration at the top of the British government with the White House is arguably unlike anything that has been seen since the Falklands War in 1982. [/color]
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...anks-78smlf5ht
Military hunt for head of the armed forces breaks ranks
Boris Johnson has requested that the defence secretary put forward lower-ranked candidates than normal for the job as head of the armed forces, The Times has learnt.
Senior government sources said the prime minister wanted a “broader pool” of candidates to select from for General Sir Nick Carter’s replacement, even if it meant them skipping a rank.
It is understood Ben Wallace invited three three-star ranks to apply for the role: Vice-Admiral Sir Ben Key, who led the evacuation effort in Afghanistan; Lieutenant General Sir James Hockenhull, chief of defence intelligence; and Air Marshal Gerry Mayhew.
The last two declined but Key, chief of joint operations, has applied for the chief of the defence staff position and is said to have a “good relationship” with Wallace, having impressed him with his work in Afghanistan and on the carrier strike group deployment to the Indo-Pacific region.
If Key were handed the job it would make him the first three-star to get the top job.
Four four-star generals have also been interviewed by Wallace to replace Carter, although it is expected to be a “two-horse race”, sources said.
Several insiders said that General Sir Patrick Sanders, head of strategic command, and Admiral Sir Antony Radakin, the first sea lord, were the most likely choices for the role when Carter steps down at the end of November.
A senior government source said that Radakin was the overall favourite, given Johnson’s focus on the Royal Navy and shipbuilding, and although Sanders could be offered the job of head of the army, there were concerns he might quit if he did not get the top post.
The source said Johnson wanted “honest, clear thinking” and a clearing out of obsolete kit, a changing of working patterns and modernising all the forces “properly” to save money.
Wallace has interviewed the candidates and had dinner with most of them in informal settings, giving them a chance to share their ideas for defence.
Military hunt for head of the armed forces breaks ranks
Boris Johnson has requested that the defence secretary put forward lower-ranked candidates than normal for the job as head of the armed forces, The Times has learnt.
Senior government sources said the prime minister wanted a “broader pool” of candidates to select from for General Sir Nick Carter’s replacement, even if it meant them skipping a rank.
It is understood Ben Wallace invited three three-star ranks to apply for the role: Vice-Admiral Sir Ben Key, who led the evacuation effort in Afghanistan; Lieutenant General Sir James Hockenhull, chief of defence intelligence; and Air Marshal Gerry Mayhew.
The last two declined but Key, chief of joint operations, has applied for the chief of the defence staff position and is said to have a “good relationship” with Wallace, having impressed him with his work in Afghanistan and on the carrier strike group deployment to the Indo-Pacific region.
If Key were handed the job it would make him the first three-star to get the top job.
Four four-star generals have also been interviewed by Wallace to replace Carter, although it is expected to be a “two-horse race”, sources said.
Several insiders said that General Sir Patrick Sanders, head of strategic command, and Admiral Sir Antony Radakin, the first sea lord, were the most likely choices for the role when Carter steps down at the end of November.
A senior government source said that Radakin was the overall favourite, given Johnson’s focus on the Royal Navy and shipbuilding, and although Sanders could be offered the job of head of the army, there were concerns he might quit if he did not get the top post.
The source said Johnson wanted “honest, clear thinking” and a clearing out of obsolete kit, a changing of working patterns and modernising all the forces “properly” to save money.
Wallace has interviewed the candidates and had dinner with most of them in informal settings, giving them a chance to share their ideas for defence.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
The source said Johnson wanted “honest, clear thinking” and a clearing out of obsolete kit, a changing of working patterns and modernising all the forces “properly” to save money.
There were a few MPs who muttered in the direction of the ambassador that the Americans couldn't be relied upon, which left the poor chap feeling a bit bruised (given that he knew Cap Weinberger had adopted a 'I don't give a damn what State thinks' approach and was sending eye-wateringly large amounts of material support to Ascension.
Thread Starter
Problem was that there were several different constituencies in the USA - none of whom thought the FI were important at all.
Some of State were determined to build a non-communist Latin America, some were "Atlanticists", the president didn't know and didn't care, the electorate & the media likewise
It was clear they never got their heads around the importance Argentina and the UK ascribed to the conflict.
Most of the US military sort of backed the UK - they hadn't anywhere near the same interests, history or contacts invested in Argentina
Some of State were determined to build a non-communist Latin America, some were "Atlanticists", the president didn't know and didn't care, the electorate & the media likewise
It was clear they never got their heads around the importance Argentina and the UK ascribed to the conflict.
Most of the US military sort of backed the UK - they hadn't anywhere near the same interests, history or contacts invested in Argentina
In fairness just before the first reassertion of British sovereignty the US did forcibly remove all the (soon to be) resident Argentinians from the Falklands and destroyed their property and arms. Maybe the US were a little concerned by our lack of attentiveness when we managed to lose it again nearly 150 years later.
Thread Starter
"The source said Johnson wanted “honest, clear thinking” and a clearing out of obsolete kit, a changing of working patterns and modernising all the forces “properly” to save money."
I suspect it's the last bit of the statement that is the most important in Whitehall
I suspect it's the last bit of the statement that is the most important in Whitehall
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Now we get the pitch from the second man angling for the top job (post #762)…
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...guns-92qq9cx7d
Military ‘needs to focus more on gadgets and coding than guns’
The military needs more “Qs”, the gadget specialist portrayed in the James Bond films, than “007s”, according to the general in charge of cyber and special forces.
General Sir Patrick Sanders, head of strategic command, said that the future of warfare needed to focus much less on conventional capabilities and more on the digital age. Speaking at the opening of the DSEI arms fair, he said: “I have more need of Q than I do 007 or M.”
M is the fictional head of the Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6, as played by Dame Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes in the recent films.
Sanders, who is in the running to replace General Sir Nick Carter as head of the armed forces, said that “equal value and equal status” should be afforded to computer scientists, data engineers and cyberoperators as it is to the “traditional warrior elite”.
He wanted coding and data literacy to be seen as a core skill in the same way as weapon handling. He said the security outlook was “more perilous” than it was two years ago, with the UK facing a twin spectre of “emboldened jihadi terrorists” and a “growing authoritarian zeitgeist” not seen since the 1930s.
China’s military operations have shifted from the concentration of forces to information systems, including the creation of autonomous swarms, Sanders said. If the UK military does not adapt to compete with such technological innovations, then “we will at best become exquisite but irrelevant, and at worst we will die”.
He acknowledged that in order to adapt, soldiers would need to be educated and trained to have the skills required to compete with adversaries such as Russia and China.
“We will have to address the skills gap through attracting far more diverse talent, by inward investment so that coding and data literacy are seen as being as much a core skill as weapon handling.”……
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...guns-92qq9cx7d
Military ‘needs to focus more on gadgets and coding than guns’
The military needs more “Qs”, the gadget specialist portrayed in the James Bond films, than “007s”, according to the general in charge of cyber and special forces.
General Sir Patrick Sanders, head of strategic command, said that the future of warfare needed to focus much less on conventional capabilities and more on the digital age. Speaking at the opening of the DSEI arms fair, he said: “I have more need of Q than I do 007 or M.”
M is the fictional head of the Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6, as played by Dame Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes in the recent films.
Sanders, who is in the running to replace General Sir Nick Carter as head of the armed forces, said that “equal value and equal status” should be afforded to computer scientists, data engineers and cyberoperators as it is to the “traditional warrior elite”.
He wanted coding and data literacy to be seen as a core skill in the same way as weapon handling. He said the security outlook was “more perilous” than it was two years ago, with the UK facing a twin spectre of “emboldened jihadi terrorists” and a “growing authoritarian zeitgeist” not seen since the 1930s.
China’s military operations have shifted from the concentration of forces to information systems, including the creation of autonomous swarms, Sanders said. If the UK military does not adapt to compete with such technological innovations, then “we will at best become exquisite but irrelevant, and at worst we will die”.
He acknowledged that in order to adapt, soldiers would need to be educated and trained to have the skills required to compete with adversaries such as Russia and China.
“We will have to address the skills gap through attracting far more diverse talent, by inward investment so that coding and data literacy are seen as being as much a core skill as weapon handling.”……
Last edited by ORAC; 14th Sep 2021 at 21:02.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Not sure what to think of this. From a newsletter I have received…
“The RAF has started a transition from the legacy 80 branches and trades to a structure modelled around 'Professions…. This change is part of the transformation into the 'Next Generation Air Force' where we will see just 11 professions across all ranks (commissioned and non-commissioned).
There are a number of reasons behind this change aimed at increasing workforce agility (the range of employment the Service can direct our people to undertake) and flexibility (the ability of our people to request differing employment roles). Each profession (or group of professions) will have a single 2-star head
The RN & Army are also moving across to Professions….. The whole transition to professions is due to end by 2026…
And finally, the RAF is in the process of reviewing the 'Air Command Operating Model'. In the same way that the move to Professions is aiming to get personnel employment and careers fit for the Next Gen Air Force so the Air Command Operating Model aims to get the RAF structures fit for how we operate and fight……”
“The RAF has started a transition from the legacy 80 branches and trades to a structure modelled around 'Professions…. This change is part of the transformation into the 'Next Generation Air Force' where we will see just 11 professions across all ranks (commissioned and non-commissioned).
There are a number of reasons behind this change aimed at increasing workforce agility (the range of employment the Service can direct our people to undertake) and flexibility (the ability of our people to request differing employment roles). Each profession (or group of professions) will have a single 2-star head
The RN & Army are also moving across to Professions….. The whole transition to professions is due to end by 2026…
And finally, the RAF is in the process of reviewing the 'Air Command Operating Model'. In the same way that the move to Professions is aiming to get personnel employment and careers fit for the Next Gen Air Force so the Air Command Operating Model aims to get the RAF structures fit for how we operate and fight……”
New Professions
It’s funny really because before the big change started I was a pilot. Once the change is complete I’ll still be a pilot.
I know quite alot of people have been gnashing their teeth over it but I just can’t get excited about it.
Maybe it just doesn’t affect me enough.
BV
I know quite alot of people have been gnashing their teeth over it but I just can’t get excited about it.
Maybe it just doesn’t affect me enough.
BV
Just read ORAC's latest. Long overdue I feel. I ventured the suggestion for the creation of parallel sub branch structures akin to "Specialist Aircrew" across a reduced Branch/trade structure number many years ago. It got some support but foundered in the greater scheme of things, including the consequent loss of at least one recently established Senior Officer post for my then Branch ........
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s funny really because before the big change started I was a pilot. Once the change is complete I’ll still be a pilot.
I know quite alot of people have been gnashing their teeth over it but I just can’t get excited about it.
Maybe it just doesn’t affect me enough.
BV
I know quite alot of people have been gnashing their teeth over it but I just can’t get excited about it.
Maybe it just doesn’t affect me enough.
BV
Bearing in mind that the RAF is now less than a third of the size it was,even in the late 60's , yet still retaining many of the old rank/ branch structures?
Last edited by Haraka; 24th Sep 2021 at 09:22.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The change from Admin, Ops and Eng wings were an absolute farce that yielded nothing tangible whatsoever other than having to pay for new signs.
Most changes such as these are vanity projects of the hierarchy.