|
UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Today's "Times" has an article about the Defence Review Boris has promised for next year - full of quotes from the usual band of ex-VSO's fighting the corner for their ex-Service
Army - must keep a "war fighting all arms Division of 20,000 men" RAF - Accept no cuts, need extra 2 Typhoon squadrons RN - Successor, more amphib , frigates - no mothballing or sale of the PoW This one could run and run - but generally a UK SDR isn't good news for anyone |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10630751)
generally a UK SDR isn't good news for anyone
Judging by the spending commitments being flung about like confetti in the current election campaign I strongly suspect Defence funding will stay no more than a whisker ahead of 2%. And who knows what the GDP forecasts would look like after a Brexit deal is done. If the SDSR happens in a hurry after the election then it will probably be finished ahead of any such forecasts, which would be very convenient indeed for a new Government looking to avoid hard choices. The big decisions will probably happen with much less fanfare (and lobbying) when the mid-term spending review sets out financial reality in 2022-23 or so... |
The General Staff were recently reported to be looking to contract the size of the Army to about 65,000, or even less, in order to address the poor retention problem they have. I somehow don't think it'll work. Further, the Bun fight seems to have already started, with the Army and Navy the most vocal of all. The army are calling for one of the two new Carries to be loaned, or hired, to the US Navy. Both the two more senior arms are calling for the RAF to be folded as they see it, because soon all air warfare will be done by drones. I don't know how they've arrived at such a notion. Especially the RN with the prospect of an undeterminable number of F-35s in the pipeline for their two new massive aircraft carriers, which they want to hang on to and have objected to the Army's suggestion they be rented out.
Best regards, FB |
Well the second carrier was always supposed to be "at readiness" i.e parked in Portsmouth but able to go into action relatively (= an undetermined period) quickly.
The one thing going for the RAF is that the Typhoon production line could do with a boost if only to retain the skill sets plus they get the P-8's and most of the drones The Navy are getting their new frigates and patrol boats (and Succesor and the last "Astute") The Army looked stuffed at the moment. |
A commitment to the F-35A for the RAF with a reduction in the B model procurement.
|
Originally Posted by BVRAAM
(Post 10630839)
A commitment to the F-35A for the RAF with a reduction in the B model procurement.
FB |
Asturia56,
That changed ages ago with both fully crewed and operational. |
Finningley Boy,
"Hear, hear," as in "Hear him, Hear him!" |
Originally Posted by pr00ne
(Post 10630864)
Finningley Boy,
"Hear, hear," as in "Hear him, Hear him!" FB |
Originally Posted by pr00ne
(Post 10630863)
Asturia56,
That changed ages ago with both fully crewed and operational. |
Originally Posted by BVRAAM
(Post 10630839)
A commitment to the F-35A for the RAF with a reduction in the B model procurement.
The Naval Lobby would go into meltdown................. |
11 posts in and nobody mentioned the Scottish Play :E
|
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10630897)
The Naval Lobby would go into meltdown.................
FB |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10630897)
The Naval Lobby would go into meltdown.................
A cut to the B model and an A model buy would allow for more airframes overall because the A is considerably cheaper, and a refuelling boom upgrade to Voyager which would make the C-17, Poseidon and Airseeker communities very happy. Good for the Wedgetail, too, when it arrives. |
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy
(Post 10630935)
They may make the case for all 138 to be B, but surely no more than 48 or 60 maximum would be justifiable. I'm sure the Navy would like to overtake the RAF's principal role, but if the RAF is going to be a truly expeditionary force then it is better off have the A variant. The RN I'm sure would try and thwart such a balance.
FB And then reset the culture such as “OOADs”/“deployments” are routine and positive, not something to be whinged about - as many do on here. Then you can work on supporting the RAF ISR community - in particular the PED - to get best value from the stuff we have. And then sort out the flying training pipeline. Then, perhaps, you might be in the market for new jets. |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10630832)
The Army looked stuffed at the moment. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...r-british-army |
Absolutely - Matthew 18 V10-14
|
Originally Posted by BVRAAM
(Post 10630948)
Oh well! ;)
A cut to the B model and an A model buy would allow for more airframes overall because the A is considerably cheaper, and a refuelling boom upgrade to Voyager which would make the C-17, Poseidon and Airseeker communities very happy. Good for the Wedgetail, too, when it arrives. |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10631002)
More likely to mean the UK gets something closer to the "target" of 138 air-frames overall
|
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 10630896)
was that a definite promise, an intention or an aspiration? we see all 3 with respect to UK defence policy unfortunately :uhoh:
It's just a fact. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:44. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.