General UK Defence Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

Anyone think that the FSS and Boxer decision announcements were engineered to coincide, so that (in simple minds, like those doing the election debates ) a plus would cancel the minus?

[Lord Jim]

Quite likely, though the usual plan is to release negative news as quietly and in as small a print as possible. The next release regarding FSS will probably be to say they are gong to be built in the UK now, but no date will be set publicly at least.

[ArmChairCivvy]

be built in the UK now, but no date will be set publicly at least.

Eh-heh, except that they let it slip by setting the CEPP fully operational date to 2016
... there can be no other (substantial) reason than heavy RAS only coming in then, with the first of class of "these"

[Lord Jim]

Was that 2026 or are we already three years behind schedule?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Was that 2026 or are we already three years behind schedule?

... and the answers is : you are right on both accounts, as the original in-service dates for the carriers were 2014-16
- let's count from the latter one (for both of them)

[cky7]

Not sure if this is the right place to mention this (if it’s ok I’ll repeat this post in the carrier thread as there’s loads of talk about flying from the QEs and past ships)?

Anyone with an interest in military aviation REALLY should check this podcast out. I discovered them through the excellent aircrew interviews on YouTube. Bunch of reallly experienced U.K. pilots chatting aviation and about their experiences - including what they’ve been up to last months. Between them you’re talking guys who’ve flown typhoons, Tonkas, harriers, all the teen US types and the f22 and 35. A guy who has been an instructor and then test pilot for both U.K. and US. currently listening to debate on their feelings on simulators vs real thing, with particular interest in the f35s on QEs. Absolutely fascinating and some snippets I was amazed was freely talked about unclassified. Really check this out, hours of fascinating listening.

[Lord Jim]

I have not seen the report published by RUSI regarding the shortfalls in the Army and other services, but the fact that the media is running with it as a headline is a pleasant surprise. The reporting though is a bit off target. It mentions a lack of artillery and ammunition and refers repeatedly to the "800" soldiers stationed in the Baltic states, with the headline being the British Army would be seriously outgunned by Russia in any future conflict. One report also mentions that the RUSI report calls for a total re equipping of the Army to make it viable against a Russian Threat.

What is disappointing but expected has been the MoD's response, simply saying the United Kingdom and a number of responses to such threats. Well that was a quote straight out of the MoD Manual. This was a golden opportunity for the MoD to engage in a debate on the Armed Forces, but it is obviously seem as a political land mine which no party wants to discuss during the Election.

With no SDSR due until 2022 if the once every five years rule is adhered to things are going to push past a crisis point, especially for the Army. Yes Ajax and Boxer are on the way but both programmes are not going to currently deliver all the types of vehicle needed. The Warrior CSP is still moving forward at an artificially slow pace, with what seem a considerable effort being made to push back the actual production phase. The MRV(P) programme seems to have gone very quite after the initial announcements over a year ago and as for the Challenger 2 update programme I can already see it at the front of the queue for being axed or delayed even further.

Once again someone somewhere has done a risk assessment and has told those who make the decisions, the Cabinet/Treasury, and have come to the conclusion that the Royal Air Force will continue to fly combat missions and so will the Royal Navy who also have the very public Carriers to bring into service. But besides Special Forces there is no foreseen need or threat that will require the Army in any numbers and so money can be saved by reducing the running costs and investment in the service. There will be no announced cuts but little or no new money so by default things will have to give. We had better pray that no need or threat arises during the next decade as the implications to the welfare of our troops if they are committed are negative if I was being conservative.

[ArmChairCivvy]

that the media is running with it as a headline is a pleasant surprise.

Both RUSI and the media are expecting(?) the usual, fairly round statements from the upcoming NATO meeting in London
... so a good attempt to do some agenda setting

[SW1]

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-20 ... f-elected/

John Louth, the director of the defense, industry and society program at the Royal United Services Institute think tank in London, said Johnson’s proposed review appears to lay the ground for a far more radical rethink than previous strategic defense and security proposals.

“He’s talking about a once-in-a-generation review with everything on the table. Ideas on re-rolling the RAF more toward space, that sounds like something quite profound. Whether that becomes a reality – who knows, but for the moment everything could be in the mix. From what we know they are almost talking about a zero-based budgeting exercise with everything up for grabs,” said Louth.

Johnson’s review announcement comes against a background of rising tensions in the Ministry of Defence where service chiefs are already said to be fighting amongst themselves over future funding levels for the military.

One government relations consultant, who asked not to be named, said there was nothing unusual about infighting among the services for funds but the backstabbing was fiercer and earlier in the budget cycle than usual.

Louth said what was challenging now is the “funding doesn’t allow everything on the shopping list, and the personnel numbers in the armed forces don’t allow them to man the equipment they are already committed to, so something will have to give.”

[ArmChairCivvy]

Aid has been thrown into the mix (actually, my earlier criticism seems to be based on this quote having been truncated in press reports): "“It will extend from the armed forces to the intelligence services, counter-terrorism forces and serious organized crime. It will also consider Britain’s foreign policy, how we can best use our huge expenditure on international development, and the role of technology,” he said.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Can't decide whether this new review fills me with optimism or dread...

My greatest fear is cuts by stealth with investment into "security" happening at the expense of "defence". You can already see the scope this provides the spin doctors at No 10.

[topman]

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2019 ... -pensions/

Looks like a decision has pretty much made. I wonder if that amount set aside early will cover it or they'll need to be additional money found? Good news for those serving and under 45 (in 2015).

[james k]

It seem as if the Royal Marines and much of the RN are under threat from the Treasury again if reports are to be believed. Lib Dems want to hand over everything, including responsibility, to the eu. Labour just want all those nasty defence and security issues to disappear and Conservative have an ideology of Treasury driven Defence requirements. It could almost be a perfect storm.

[topman]

I wouldn't believe anything you read in the papers regarding leaks about future options. They're all pure guess work due to the election. The grown ups need to sign off on it all first. There won't really be a clear idea of what's what until well into next year.

[ArmChairCivvy]

There won't really be a clear idea of what's what until well into next year.

... like about July (next decision/confirmation of direction milestone)?
- I agree that reading election slogans makes one 'none the wiser'
- however, there are also facts (though slightly less prominently on display), like that the “party of the economy” is pursuing a Brexit deal that the government’s own forecasts suggest will reduce growth by as much as 6.7 per cent of GDP between 2020 and 2034. THAT money, through a smaller tax base and the need to stimulate the economy and prop up the hardest hit industries, believe me, will be away from defence (divide translation into ££s by the number of years), as clearly with less affluence, other priorities will take on added urgency.

[SW1]

https://rusi.org/event/annual-chief-def ... party-2019

Chief of defence staff Xmas lecture. The overview of how widely and to what extent armed forces are deployed quite revealing, also he has a right pop at the times and there recent defence article which can only mean it must be closer to the truth than first thought.

[ArmChairCivvy]

extent armed forces are deployed quite revealing

36% either deployed or at high readiness (counting only trained strength, as the basis)!
- the topics of the winning essays (at the very end) are also worthy of note, and will undoubtedly help to further the Fusion doctrine, by making it topical

[Caribbean]

can only mean it must be closer to the truth than first thought

Or alternatively, that it is completely unfounded , speculative, tosh.

To be honest, it just looked like a re-cycled article from around 12-15 months ago.

[SW1]

can only mean it must be closer to the truth than first thought

Or alternatively, that it is completely unfounded , speculative, tosh.

To be honest, it just looked like a re-cycled article from around 12-15 months ago.

Yeah but it would be odd to start a witch hunt over a story that’s false. You only start those for embarrassing ones that have an element of truth to them.

It read somewhat like that, but then arguably the force structure conclusions from the defence review that became a bit too difficult so was put on hold havent changed they’ve just been delayed.

[SW1]

extent armed forces are deployed quite revealing

36% either deployed or at high readiness (counting only trained strength, as the basis)!
- the topics of the winning essays (at the very end) are also worthy of note, and will undoubtedly help to further the Fusion doctrine, by making it topical

I thought that number sounded rather high to be sustainable. Though it interesting his to areas of threat were Russia in the Atlantic and the spread of terrorist ideology and destabilisation.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I thought that number sounded rather high to be sustainable

It is high, but
- calculated from trained strength
- 36/ 110 = 32.7% = the 'good, old' Rule of Three
- and hi-readiness in not the same as deployed, just part of the predetermined cycle (for some units, but including their assigned support in Theatre ... something... Troops that has now been given a new name, which does come up in the lecture)

arguably the force structure conclusions from the defence review that became a bit too difficult so was put on hold havent changed they’ve just been delayed.

Agree, just like when FF2020 was still the target, budgetarily it was calculated to get over the chalk lines in 2023/24... but as you say, there was a review in between, the target changed and do we even know when both of the Strike Bdes are supposed to be fully 'stood up'?

[Lord Jim]

Looking at the announced delivery schedule for just the Boxer I would say we are looking at six to eight years to have both Brigades full operational. The same could be said of the Armoured Infantry Brigades as well as the WCIP and CR2 CSP are both moving along in the slow lane to be polite and the new Precision Forces capability is still on the back of a Fag Packet so to speak.

Two areas I believe the next SDSR must address as its highest priority is the increase personnel, especially in the Army and Navy and accelerate the equipment programmes for the former, but this will require additional funding up front from the treasury, and here we are talking a meaningful amount of new cash being injected. The Treasury must be convinced to accept multi year funding for key programmes and abandon its yearly spreadsheet regime.

[ArmChairCivvy]

increase personnel, especially in the Army and Navy and accelerate the equipment programmes for the former

Agree, when one gets to read about the trained strength in the Army by Corps, the figures come across as tiny for some key areas... starting with RA, for instance
- the thinking in the mold of MRBs seems not to have gone away (penny-packet deployments, cobbled together in the last moment, to share the 'burden' of sustained presence equally); even when the official line is to get a whole, rounded division up... in a format and with kit that will make it both quickly deployable and manoeuvre warfare capable

[Lord Jim]

The current plans for the Army moving forward are one thing but there is a huge bow wave of hardware stuck in the procurement traffic jam. Until Units start seeing this new equipment, I would say they are borderline combat ineffective against a peer or near peer opponent. What has been almost criminal is that in the grand scheme of things, the percentage of the equipment budget that the Army needs to improve things is relatively small but the impression one gets is that the same model used for the delivery of the T-26 has been applied to all Army programmes.

Why for example are we not getting the first Boxers in 2020 from the Rheinmetall production line? With Warrior the often stated reason for endless trials has been to make the platform perfect, or at least that is the impression. In reality there has not been funding to actually place the production order and that is still not certain even next year. The MRV(P) programme has gone dark during 2019 and Ajax is still almost treading water, again with the need to complete trials the official reason but lack of in year funding is possibly more true.

I agree the Army has not actually been starved of funds but with repeated delays in it key procurement programmes have created the aforementioned bow wave and the amounts required to resolve things are going to keep getting larger or alternatively the programmes could proceed even slower, if that is possible, with the overall cost rising further.

[bobp]

With regard to the MRV(P) program going quiet there seems to be trouble in the US over price and fraudulent contracting ……………….
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/1 ... complaint/