Defence Capability and Equipment plan
Re: Defence Capability and Equipment plan
Both the MoD and the Treasury are at fault here. During the 2015 SDSR the Treasury would not fully fund what was proposed by the review insisting the shortfall be made up by efficiencies. The MoD in turn was over optimistic in what it believed it could deliver. Regardless of the results of the upcoming Integrated Review, they must be fully funded by the review.
In turn the MoD must be encouraged to seek to ensure it can deliver what is needed within this agreed budget, but also any savings it does make must be able to be put back into the Defence budget. Just as important there must be a move away from annual budgets to a multi year format to give both the MoD and Industry more confidence and flexibility.
Finally the Treasury must reverse the slight of hand it used in the 2015 SDSR where in exchange for reducing the amount of saving the MoD would have to make, it requested the MoD take the full developmental costs for the Trident Replacement Programme into the core budget. Whilst it is now obvious the MoD was foolish to agree to this at the time, it is now apparent that this programme will absorb a considerable slice of the MoD's equipment budget over the next decade, again limiting its flexibility. The Treasury needs to once again assume responsibility for the Dreadnought programme, both for its development and manufacture, but there should be no reduction in the core budget as a result. Rather the Treasury should find new money for the programme. In addition once the boats are delivered and the MoD takes on the running costs, the extra money for this should be provided by the Treasury as CASD is not a military system but a national and political one even though crewed by service men and women.
In turn the MoD must be encouraged to seek to ensure it can deliver what is needed within this agreed budget, but also any savings it does make must be able to be put back into the Defence budget. Just as important there must be a move away from annual budgets to a multi year format to give both the MoD and Industry more confidence and flexibility.
Finally the Treasury must reverse the slight of hand it used in the 2015 SDSR where in exchange for reducing the amount of saving the MoD would have to make, it requested the MoD take the full developmental costs for the Trident Replacement Programme into the core budget. Whilst it is now obvious the MoD was foolish to agree to this at the time, it is now apparent that this programme will absorb a considerable slice of the MoD's equipment budget over the next decade, again limiting its flexibility. The Treasury needs to once again assume responsibility for the Dreadnought programme, both for its development and manufacture, but there should be no reduction in the core budget as a result. Rather the Treasury should find new money for the programme. In addition once the boats are delivered and the MoD takes on the running costs, the extra money for this should be provided by the Treasury as CASD is not a military system but a national and political one even though crewed by service men and women.
Re: Defence Capability and Equipment plan
Progress in delivering he British Army's armoured vehicle capability :-
https://committees.parliament.uk/call-f ... apability/
https://committees.parliament.uk/call-f ... apability/
Re: Defence Capability and Equipment plan
A review of this type should have been conducted years ago but at least it is now happening. Problem is will the Army take any notice of it and even if it does will it have the resources to take any of the recommended actions?
Re: Defence Capability and Equipment plan
Obsolescent and Outgunned. This is worth a read (If you have the time)
https://committees.parliament.uk/commit ... -response/
https://committees.parliament.uk/commit ... -response/
Re: Defence Capability and Equipment plan
A few things caught my attentions;
- 7 years to carry out the necessary trial of the Challenger 3
- Planned OSD of the FV430/Bulldog is 2030!!
- The accelerated delivery of the Boxer will still only delivery FOC no sooner than 2030.
- No timescale at all for the improved layered GBAD.
- The UK has totally abandoned to aspiration to form a Division, instead this has been reduced to only two Heavy BCTs.
- The total belief that the "Digitisation" of the Army will make up for its lack of numbers and gaps in certain capabilities.
- The evasion and lack of hard detail in the Governments replies and the repeated use of words such as "Agile" as if these alone can paper over the large and numerous crack in the Command Paper.
These are just a few, but do highlight the fact that though the Command Paper is full of good intentions, the fact that it will take at least a decade to complete the current programmes and that many capability gaps have still not been addressed is grave cause for concern. We are still looking at at least one more Review before this meaning nothing is certain especially the level of funding required. Finally the focus on "Sunrise" capabilities is a trap the Army seem fated to fall in to repeat time and again.
- 7 years to carry out the necessary trial of the Challenger 3
- Planned OSD of the FV430/Bulldog is 2030!!
- The accelerated delivery of the Boxer will still only delivery FOC no sooner than 2030.
- No timescale at all for the improved layered GBAD.
- The UK has totally abandoned to aspiration to form a Division, instead this has been reduced to only two Heavy BCTs.
- The total belief that the "Digitisation" of the Army will make up for its lack of numbers and gaps in certain capabilities.
- The evasion and lack of hard detail in the Governments replies and the repeated use of words such as "Agile" as if these alone can paper over the large and numerous crack in the Command Paper.
These are just a few, but do highlight the fact that though the Command Paper is full of good intentions, the fact that it will take at least a decade to complete the current programmes and that many capability gaps have still not been addressed is grave cause for concern. We are still looking at at least one more Review before this meaning nothing is certain especially the level of funding required. Finally the focus on "Sunrise" capabilities is a trap the Army seem fated to fall in to repeat time and again.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Defence Capability and Equipment plan
do they all coincide? by any... coincidenceLord Jim wrote: - 7 years to carry out the necessary trial of the Challenger 3
- Planned OSD of the FV430/Bulldog is 2030!!
- The accelerated delivery of the Boxer will still only delivery FOC no sooner than 2030.
so army 2020 became army 2024
... and as that became what?? So labels have run out, but what we have been shown, is the structure to be achieved in 9 years' time. That interval makes for two SDSR's: one mid-term (shall I restart that thread ) and one at the goal; when everyone will be told: oh the way post was marked here, but it is actually there (X years away)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Defence Capability and Equipment plan
Yep as I said full of good intention and headlines but little real substance and an accepted ten plus year break for Peer level warfighting capability on top of the past ten or more years. Reality is still a fair way from where the MoD is at.
Re: Defence Capability and Equipment plan
Lockheed Martin submission to the defence committee. Part 2 deals with the F35B procurement I apologize if this has been posted previously.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... 36531/pdf/
https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... 36531/pdf/
Re: Defence Capability and Equipment plan
Well that just shows the priority still being given to update the Army after its year of neglect to its peer level warfighting capability. I mean they have set a minimum of ten years to get even those things on order operational, let alone all teh capabilities they want to transform the Army with in the 2030 that are barely funded if at all. Does not really fill me with confidence for the Army to actually deploy a balanced and effective fighting force in the 2030s.