". So the arguments will be over deployment cycles, readiness, numbers of escorts and aircraft, mission types, etc." I don't think so

Apparently quite a few people sweating across the UK military - industrial complex.................. he doesn't take prisoners................

But we had the Admirals writing in the Times letter pages rebutting Hastings article today ... this will run and run.............

That'll be the UK that is the 3 or 4th largest defence exporter in the world? Going to have to go some to move up that ladder, given who's above us.

It will be interesting to see how DC squares "the MIC" with the defence jobs in the North and Scotland argument. Interestingly, many of the "inefficiencies" are entangled with process to ensure VFM and prevent fraud, as well as annualised budgets for capital projects - which John Parker had as the most important fix in his shipbuilding strategy and which strangely has yet to win HMT approval......

F-35B launch from QNLZ in Portsmouth apparently scheduled for 1230 today.

Shipbuilding is in a different space to aircraft and weapons, which have underpinned our export ranking on the basis of our willingness to export to the Gulf and our past success in doing so. But we are ever more dependent on partnership to reach our advanced domestic capability goals, and the Gulf states are becoming ever less palatable as export destinations for many of our potential partners. And partnerships tend to involve right of veto over exports. So it's not just MIC vs jobs; it's MIC vs jobs vs foreign policy. I agree that it will be fascinating to see how DC sets about it.

Given that the future has arrived as it were, could not the thread, seemingly going for ever and a day, be retitled please?

More letters in the "Times" today .

A cynic might think they ran the Hastings article to stir up some action.................... but also reporting "support for a review" from senior Tories

I wonder how long before the carriers are listed as "Fisheries protection assets"?

OAP

looking at the Ben Wallace speech (see the SDR thread) not long at all....................

If they tied that in with "homeland security" as opposed to "lets go bomb them back to the stone age" type of political direction [please note that] an awful lot of people would say well done...

weemonkey,

Be VERY careful what you wish for!

If the review was scoped as you suggest, and merely focuses the UK armed forces on home defence, you would end up with maybe 4 Typhoon AD squadrons, 1 wedgetail AEW Sqn, 1 P-8A squadron, a couple of radar stations, the SAS, a few ceremonial Guards regiments, a few OPV's and that would be about it.

Proone,
Isnt that precisely the point.....?

Just sticking with the carriers,....We have a ridiculous situation where, the sensible requirement for UK security to have 5th Gen combat aircraft has been corrupted. Notwithstanding that the RN have an impressive submarine capability that includes the UK Nuclear deterrent, the aspirations of the Navy top brass rose, unfettered almost, to include a brace of (almost) Capital ships, at the cost of a better balanced surface fleet and, to the gross detriment of the RAF. Furthermore, the capability of the UK carriers is overstated. They are vulnerable and, their specifications and limitations have neutered the performance of the 5th Gen aircraft that they will carry. The carriers vulnerability is well known and compounded by the fact that in a serious conflict, at sea they represent targets that are likely to be proportional and free from collateral risk, such that they may be targeted by Nuclear weapons within the limitations of LOAC. The use of Nuclear weapons against fixed base airfield targets is generally much more difficult within LOAC. Moreover, the fatuous argument that the location of the carriers would be unknown to a capable enemy is, just that. The RAF have been lumbered with a 5th Gen combat aircraft that is unfairly compromised by the requirements of the Navy carriers.
I firmly believe that continued progress down this flawed concept of capability should be brought to a cost effective close. The most likely way forward might be the continued operation of a single carrier. The Navy may wish to consider the ways to better balance their fleet. The RAF should be equipped with less compromised 5th Gen aircraft and not shackled with the Naval limitations. Just my opinion. :)

OAP

We really should be "moving away" from expeditionary warfare in the middle east, when the danger on the borders of Europe is growing, to consolidate on the security of "home base" If properly executed your list would do for Scotland and the Northern Approaches; Monday to Friday.

No we shouldn't.

Radical Islam is bad enough as it is, to ignore it and let them act with impunity would imperil us all.

There is a good argument for whom the target(s) should be, however.

The evidence to date suggests that the military are entirely incapable of suppressing 'radical Islam'. Indeed, military interventions have simple metastasized the problem.
The failure has been palpable, whether in Afghanistan, Libya, Mali or even Nigeria. If there has been a successful intervention, it is well hidden. Even the Israeli experience suggests the problem is intractable militarily.
There may be a solution, but just the military sure is not it.