Strategic Defence Review
Discussion
well, its going to be announced in the next few weeks and promises massive cuts to the armed forces...
so far the things being concidered are:
One or both carriers sold off or not built.
F-35 numbers from 150 to 60 or the loss of F-35 for F/A18 altogether.
No Seventh Astute sub
Loss of 3 amphibious ships
Cancellation of Nimrod MRA4
6 infantry batallions to go
Presence in Germany reduced to 1 Brigade
Challenger II - 2 Regiments retained (Reg) with a further 2 mothballed/TA
Warrior - 2 Battalions Retained (Reg) with a further 2 mothballed/TA
AS-90 - 1 Regiment retained under TA)
MLRS (Regular Regiment to disband)
Starstreak HVM - Withdrawn
Tornado - All squadrons disbanded over next 5 years
Heavy Armoured Engineering Vehicles - 1 Regiment retained (Reg) with a further Regiment mothballed/TA
Raper FSC - 1 Regiment retained and transferred to RAF Regiment Aux
Remaining C-130K (2 squadrons)
T-22 B3 - Withdrawn immediately
Typhoon Tranche 3B - Cancelled
Typhoon Tranche 1 - No further updates or modifications. To be withdrawn from 2016. Typhoon fleet will consist of T2 and T3A only
- where would this leave the UK in the world?
- do you believe that a new round of procurement will begin when things are looking more rosy?
- does the UK want/need an expeditionary or attack/strike capability. Is home defence and small scale coalition deplyoyments enough?
- AOB
cheers guys
jimbob
so far the things being concidered are:
One or both carriers sold off or not built.
F-35 numbers from 150 to 60 or the loss of F-35 for F/A18 altogether.
No Seventh Astute sub
Loss of 3 amphibious ships
Cancellation of Nimrod MRA4
6 infantry batallions to go
Presence in Germany reduced to 1 Brigade
Challenger II - 2 Regiments retained (Reg) with a further 2 mothballed/TA
Warrior - 2 Battalions Retained (Reg) with a further 2 mothballed/TA
AS-90 - 1 Regiment retained under TA)
MLRS (Regular Regiment to disband)
Starstreak HVM - Withdrawn
Tornado - All squadrons disbanded over next 5 years
Heavy Armoured Engineering Vehicles - 1 Regiment retained (Reg) with a further Regiment mothballed/TA
Raper FSC - 1 Regiment retained and transferred to RAF Regiment Aux
Remaining C-130K (2 squadrons)
T-22 B3 - Withdrawn immediately
Typhoon Tranche 3B - Cancelled
Typhoon Tranche 1 - No further updates or modifications. To be withdrawn from 2016. Typhoon fleet will consist of T2 and T3A only
- where would this leave the UK in the world?
- do you believe that a new round of procurement will begin when things are looking more rosy?
- does the UK want/need an expeditionary or attack/strike capability. Is home defence and small scale coalition deplyoyments enough?
- AOB
cheers guys
jimbob
The industry I trained in as a bit of a desert for jobs at the moment if you have little experience, so I have been considering joining up. Every time I hear those three words i'm filled with dread, and if you listen to what a few people on the military forums have to say a lot of the stuff the are using is either total s
t or the procurement of the equipment was an exercise in fk-ups.
Bad times.
t or the procurement of the equipment was an exercise in fk-ups.Bad times.
- where would this leave the UK in the world?
- do you believe that a new round of procurement will begin when things are looking more rosy?
- does the UK want/need an expeditionary or attack/strike capability. Is home defence and small scale coalition deplyoyments enough?
New procurement wont happen because by that stage in the game we will have lost capabilities which will cost a lot more to get back than it would have cost to keep.
The UK does need an expeditionary/strike capability as we do have interests abroad and treaty obligations that can be threatened. However at the minute current defence thinking is gearing up for another Afghanistan type role and aligning the military to that end at the expense of defending the UK and its overseas dependancies such as the Falklands and our interests overseas.
As it currently stands we have no Nimrods, I do not believe we have an air launched anti ship missile and we can maintain an airbridge to Afghanistan or provide air-to-air refuelling not both.
Cutting Rapier and Starstreak will leave us with very little in the way of surface to air missiles and I would rather not have to rely solely on Typhoon to protect our troops from hostile fast air, let alone Typhoon which we are getting in reduced numbers with possibly less capability than planned. Many in the army see the Typhoon as a waste of time and money and would rather have slow CAS aircraft such as an A-10 or supertucano but I think that tune would change if they had to operate while being on the receiving end of fast air, they sing the praises of the effect of airstrikes on enemy morale but fail to recognise how bad things would be if the position was reversed, even Iranian F-4s dumping tonnes of iron bombs or napalm on them would be very demoralising and could cause huge casualties.
It is foolish to repeat exactly the same mistake made in the 30s where it was said there was no chance of a large nation against nation war for at least 5 to 7 years which would allow us to rebuild our forces in response. Now they are saying that there is no chance of a nation against nation was for 10 years which will give us enough lead time to rebuild our forces.
We are an island nation that has almost been cut off from food and supplies twice in the past 100 years by a former ally/friendly nation state and now our forces are being drawn down so that we cannot protect our own sea lines of communications. We will have less surface vessels and less submarines and no long range ASW/AsuW aircraft so will have to rely on ship based rotary winged assets. As capable as the new ships/boats are they can only be in one place at once and they are not invincable.
We cannot rely on our allies as can be shown when America failed to help militarily in the Falklands, Spain and France refused the Americans permission to overfly when going to bomb Tripolli, many countries didnt support us in Iraq and Afghanistan and there are many more examples. We need the ability to protect ourselves and protect our interests overseas ourselves and with as many cuts that are planned we will not be able to.
At least otehr countries arent rearmin, the russian navy is rebuilding with newer and better submarines that the very few MRA4 and our subs would not be able to find and follow all of them, let alone the planned expansion in surface vessels. Argentina has just upped its defence budget by 50% and although their military is in a poor state, if that money was spent wisely for a few years they could have a credible force able to take the Falklands, and would the USA help us or their other allies Argentina which could possibly allow US companies to drill for oil of Las Malvinas? Even doing nothing and leaving us to go it on our own means we could not recapture the Falklands. We are stretched thin already so what happens if things get worse in Afghanistan and then there is another conflict that we have to get involved in? Is it a case of "sorry Iraq, we came in and destabilised your country, now things are getting worse again but we shall leave you to it?" What about other trouble spots? Balkans, Near east, far east, south america, africa, northern Ireland?
We do not have enough troops to sustain operations in Afghanistan and have capability to spare, Astute and the type 45s would be absolutely useless on the streets of Belfast, Mastiff is too big and Jackal is completely unsuited, the new DPM would stand out like a sore thumb in turf lodge or the ardoyne. Likewise snatch trucks are limited in usefulness protecting shipping in the western approaches in winter.
We are facing the possibility that we are stretched too thin and declaring massive cuts when other countries can really use that to their advantage. I honestly think that the possibility is there of things domino-ing with one conflict starting leading to US/UK having very little spare capability, leading to another conflict starting leading to US/UK having less spare capability and inability to interfere and so on. Until China or Russia or Iran or A.N.other country steps in.
- do you believe that a new round of procurement will begin when things are looking more rosy?
- does the UK want/need an expeditionary or attack/strike capability. Is home defence and small scale coalition deplyoyments enough?
New procurement wont happen because by that stage in the game we will have lost capabilities which will cost a lot more to get back than it would have cost to keep.
The UK does need an expeditionary/strike capability as we do have interests abroad and treaty obligations that can be threatened. However at the minute current defence thinking is gearing up for another Afghanistan type role and aligning the military to that end at the expense of defending the UK and its overseas dependancies such as the Falklands and our interests overseas.
As it currently stands we have no Nimrods, I do not believe we have an air launched anti ship missile and we can maintain an airbridge to Afghanistan or provide air-to-air refuelling not both.
Cutting Rapier and Starstreak will leave us with very little in the way of surface to air missiles and I would rather not have to rely solely on Typhoon to protect our troops from hostile fast air, let alone Typhoon which we are getting in reduced numbers with possibly less capability than planned. Many in the army see the Typhoon as a waste of time and money and would rather have slow CAS aircraft such as an A-10 or supertucano but I think that tune would change if they had to operate while being on the receiving end of fast air, they sing the praises of the effect of airstrikes on enemy morale but fail to recognise how bad things would be if the position was reversed, even Iranian F-4s dumping tonnes of iron bombs or napalm on them would be very demoralising and could cause huge casualties.
It is foolish to repeat exactly the same mistake made in the 30s where it was said there was no chance of a large nation against nation war for at least 5 to 7 years which would allow us to rebuild our forces in response. Now they are saying that there is no chance of a nation against nation was for 10 years which will give us enough lead time to rebuild our forces.
We are an island nation that has almost been cut off from food and supplies twice in the past 100 years by a former ally/friendly nation state and now our forces are being drawn down so that we cannot protect our own sea lines of communications. We will have less surface vessels and less submarines and no long range ASW/AsuW aircraft so will have to rely on ship based rotary winged assets. As capable as the new ships/boats are they can only be in one place at once and they are not invincable.
We cannot rely on our allies as can be shown when America failed to help militarily in the Falklands, Spain and France refused the Americans permission to overfly when going to bomb Tripolli, many countries didnt support us in Iraq and Afghanistan and there are many more examples. We need the ability to protect ourselves and protect our interests overseas ourselves and with as many cuts that are planned we will not be able to.
At least otehr countries arent rearmin, the russian navy is rebuilding with newer and better submarines that the very few MRA4 and our subs would not be able to find and follow all of them, let alone the planned expansion in surface vessels. Argentina has just upped its defence budget by 50% and although their military is in a poor state, if that money was spent wisely for a few years they could have a credible force able to take the Falklands, and would the USA help us or their other allies Argentina which could possibly allow US companies to drill for oil of Las Malvinas? Even doing nothing and leaving us to go it on our own means we could not recapture the Falklands. We are stretched thin already so what happens if things get worse in Afghanistan and then there is another conflict that we have to get involved in? Is it a case of "sorry Iraq, we came in and destabilised your country, now things are getting worse again but we shall leave you to it?" What about other trouble spots? Balkans, Near east, far east, south america, africa, northern Ireland?
We do not have enough troops to sustain operations in Afghanistan and have capability to spare, Astute and the type 45s would be absolutely useless on the streets of Belfast, Mastiff is too big and Jackal is completely unsuited, the new DPM would stand out like a sore thumb in turf lodge or the ardoyne. Likewise snatch trucks are limited in usefulness protecting shipping in the western approaches in winter.
We are facing the possibility that we are stretched too thin and declaring massive cuts when other countries can really use that to their advantage. I honestly think that the possibility is there of things domino-ing with one conflict starting leading to US/UK having very little spare capability, leading to another conflict starting leading to US/UK having less spare capability and inability to interfere and so on. Until China or Russia or Iran or A.N.other country steps in.
That is an excellant post and you have spelt out the reality I think. I know a young man in the forces who cannot tell me what he does as it is secret, but I think it is safe to say there are a lot of companies who are trying to make out that the next step is war fought from a distance, remote control planes and armour controlled by the "playstation" generation, less need to send huge task forces etc etc.
We have a history of cutting the forces when it is the wrong time, it will probably repeat again.
There are huge savings to be made without cutting men, logistics would be better run by Tesco, procurment is so long winded the need has changed before a decision is made and too many ceromonial roles that cost too much money like regimental dinners. Amalgamate into bigger forces with less top end.
We have a history of cutting the forces when it is the wrong time, it will probably repeat again.
There are huge savings to be made without cutting men, logistics would be better run by Tesco, procurment is so long winded the need has changed before a decision is made and too many ceromonial roles that cost too much money like regimental dinners. Amalgamate into bigger forces with less top end.
What's more worrying is the complete lack of interest from the general public. This is an absolutely crucial subject, yet even on PH it can't generate much response.
Even worse, is the complete ignorance that Politicians continue to show on the subject of defence. I really do despair.
Even worse, is the complete ignorance that Politicians continue to show on the subject of defence. I really do despair.
Elroy Blue said:
What's more worrying is the complete lack of interest from the general public. This is an absolutely crucial subject, yet even on PH it can't generate much response.
Even worse, is the complete ignorance that Politicians continue to show on the subject of defence. I really do despair.
Which is why defence has been neglected for decades. No votes in it.Even worse, is the complete ignorance that Politicians continue to show on the subject of defence. I really do despair.
Elroy Blue said:
What's more worrying is the complete lack of interest from the general public. This is an absolutely crucial subject, yet even on PH it can't generate much response.
Even worse, is the complete ignorance that Politicians continue to show on the subject of defence. I really do despair.
The problem on PH is that we can merely add +1 to the posts already made. The issue has been well covered here. I can only suggest that we get the hell out of the EU and use some of the money saved to fund the military better.Even worse, is the complete ignorance that Politicians continue to show on the subject of defence. I really do despair.
s2art said:
Elroy Blue said:
What's more worrying is the complete lack of interest from the general public. This is an absolutely crucial subject, yet even on PH it can't generate much response.
Even worse, is the complete ignorance that Politicians continue to show on the subject of defence. I really do despair.
The problem on PH is that we can merely add +1 to the posts already made. The issue has been well covered here. I can only suggest that we get the hell out of the EU and use some of the money saved to fund the military better.Even worse, is the complete ignorance that Politicians continue to show on the subject of defence. I really do despair.
What happens though is politicians who have little knowledge of the military ( thats because they have to know a little about a lot to be a good MP) hear the arguements against all the kit and instead of navy getting a proper FAA, army getting SH and airforce getting more Typhoon, they all get the opposite. If a politician is told the RAF can do without the cold war relic Typhoon then they will be happy to cut it, even though the truth is its the most modern multirole combat aircraft ever built and capable of being a great asset to all three services.
Its this infighting that causes most of the harm, and as a result of numbers of aircraft getting cut , higher unit costs and higher through life costs put politicians off investing in more capability.
The money is there and being spent on the forces but we get terrible value for money.
And I do not buy the arguement that the population do not support the forces. Look at the support for help for heros, how popular military books are, how airshows draw huge crowds, the second most popular attractions/ events after football matches. Military themed video games are some of the most popular as well.
I do however believe that the forces have crap PR, the BBC has a part to play in this as its mostly anti military lefty luvvies run it and partly contribute to this attitude that we should be ashamed to be british and have pride in the forces.
Eric Mc said:
Elroy Blue said:
What's more worrying is the complete lack of interest from the general public. This is an absolutely crucial subject, yet even on PH it can't generate much response.
Even worse, is the complete ignorance that Politicians continue to show on the subject of defence. I really do despair.
Which is why defence has been neglected for decades. No votes in it.Even worse, is the complete ignorance that Politicians continue to show on the subject of defence. I really do despair.
its funny, 70 years since the battle of britain yet people still think we are always going to be safe...
jimbobsimmonds said:
its funny, 70 years since the battle of britain yet people still think we are always going to be safe...
65 years of peace in Europe (possibly exceptingthose crazy Yugoslavs) does have some consequences.
No politico will look further than the next general election anyway.
Is it really the case that in the middle of a recession
the UK can continue its role as a major league player
in all departments ?
Surely a case can be constructed that the UK can reasonably
have a less world-wide military role and use some of the money
saved to have better schools, roads and hospitals ?
It's clearly a tradeoff of priorities and defence is
way way down the list for most people.
dcb said:
jimbobsimmonds said:
its funny, 70 years since the battle of britain yet people still think we are always going to be safe...
65 years of peace in Europe (possibly exceptingthose crazy Yugoslavs) does have some consequences.
No politico will look further than the next general election anyway.
Is it really the case that in the middle of a recession
the UK can continue its role as a major league player
in all departments ?
Surely a case can be constructed that the UK can reasonably
have a less world-wide military role and use some of the money
saved to have better schools, roads and hospitals ?
It's clearly a tradeoff of priorities and defence is
way way down the list for most people.
I believe if people were better informed about what the military requires to do certain roles then opinions may change...
Unfortunately, deciding NOT to spend money in one area does not automatically mean that the "saved" money will be spent wisely in some other more "worthy" area. In my experience, the "saved" money just seems to get frittered away and the areas that should have been improved don't really get any better than they would have anyway.
Eric Mc said:
Unfortunately, deciding NOT to spend money in one area does not automatically mean that the "saved" money will be spent wisely in some other more "worthy" area. In my experience, the "saved" money just seems to get frittered away and the areas that should have been improved don't really get any better than they would have anyway.
it doesnt even get frittered away, the treasury take it and it leaves the "defence" pot altogether... this is what aggravates me so much about budgeting, defence capability procurement is a risky exercise and the equipment so complicated that there will be overspend and delays but trying to quantify that by identifying how much money is required in a financial year before that fy commences is nigh on impossible, especfially when you are managing in-service capabilities.... so the areas that could have done with the money dont get it because they didnt ask for it when they drew up their budgets and any project that can identify savings rarely sees the money again as the treasury take it to spend on something completely different.... hence why there is so much skullduggery and smoke and mirrors in defence finance matters, its not nice but its the way it is...
The issue is that the public know what has to be done, but also konws that the government won't listen!
We need a strong deterrant, but we also need strong offense. Having a navala and air capacity to protect shipping and ports is as critical as have an expeditionary force. Frankly chopping funding to the NHS by 2% would probably give us both those things- as would having a massive clearout of beauracracy within the armed forces.
personally i'd model out forces on a beefed up US marine corps- stick it all in together- amalgamate our RAF and carrier born craft, and mke sure all our forces were as flexible as possible- dual role a/c, variety of haevy and light weaponry, carriers that can send off all types of aicraft. An army that cxan be sent by air, sea or land, and arrive in force, with kit that is top-end rather than "make-do" gash crap.
none of this is rocket science.
We need a strong deterrant, but we also need strong offense. Having a navala and air capacity to protect shipping and ports is as critical as have an expeditionary force. Frankly chopping funding to the NHS by 2% would probably give us both those things- as would having a massive clearout of beauracracy within the armed forces.
personally i'd model out forces on a beefed up US marine corps- stick it all in together- amalgamate our RAF and carrier born craft, and mke sure all our forces were as flexible as possible- dual role a/c, variety of haevy and light weaponry, carriers that can send off all types of aicraft. An army that cxan be sent by air, sea or land, and arrive in force, with kit that is top-end rather than "make-do" gash crap.
none of this is rocket science.
V88Dicky said:
Britain's yearly interest payments on her debt is now greater than the annual Defence Budget.
A shocking state of affairs.
All the more reason why BLiar and Winky should be up for war crimes and treason - how can you go from no deficit to this state of affairs in 13 years???A shocking state of affairs.
The thing is, show the public a TLAM and tell them the cost and then explain how many nurses that will pay for, or how many breast cancer scans, and the case is immediately lost. Unless the public are actively on the receiving end of some foreign aggression, government will never win that argument and will be ejected at the next convenient opportunity.
It's interesting when you look at the predictions that we're long over due a super volcano eruption, and what the effects that would have on global stability.
Having worked in the defence industry though, I would add that it's wrong to lay the blame at the feet of the politicians as the forces are often their own worst enemy. The Biggles effect (if you can fly a Sopwith Camel you can fly anything) is strong in the senior forces. It's amazing how the number of stripes / rings is directly proportional to the expert knowledge (on any topic) of the wearer
It's interesting when you look at the predictions that we're long over due a super volcano eruption, and what the effects that would have on global stability.
Having worked in the defence industry though, I would add that it's wrong to lay the blame at the feet of the politicians as the forces are often their own worst enemy. The Biggles effect (if you can fly a Sopwith Camel you can fly anything) is strong in the senior forces. It's amazing how the number of stripes / rings is directly proportional to the expert knowledge (on any topic) of the wearer
Getting rid of amphibious assault ships is lunacy as is the heavy lift capability.
Every time that huge defence cuts have been announced we have been at war within another 12 months. The argies are rumbling again and who knows where or when it'll blow up next. We should be reinforcing our forces with the latest kit and removing some of the 1960s kit which is still in use and causing loss of life every day!
Every time that huge defence cuts have been announced we have been at war within another 12 months. The argies are rumbling again and who knows where or when it'll blow up next. We should be reinforcing our forces with the latest kit and removing some of the 1960s kit which is still in use and causing loss of life every day!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff