SDSR wish list

[ArmChairCivvy]

It'd take about 6 weeks to move an armoured brigade to Marchwood with the current assets

Ehh? The only place where you can load straight off railway wagons. Is there no rail head anywhere around the Salisbury Plain?

[arfah]

............

[ArmChairCivvy]

Errm, getting a bit worried by now. Time to check all the property transactions around the Channel Tunnel marshalling yard for the last 5 years... if that is the next best method of getting the RF to the Continent (or beyond)?
- might find quite a few "oligarch style and scale villas" being built; and I wonder why just there

I have been joking about it in the vein "the Swiss seem to be coming" for the type of money spent on them (and the not always traditional country patch style... though there are lots of the latter type, and quite new, as well)

[shark bait]

I wouldn't call it a wish list, but I would consider the SDSR a success if we see
- an MPA orded (preferably not a competition)
- both carriers properly ran
- tranche 1's retained
- solid support ship orded

Elsewhere I would like to see stability. Continuing with the plan, with some funding to fill the gaps left from the last review. Fix them and return to a fully complement force before we start ripping new holes again.

I think I got my list...

[SKB]

No extra T45's
No Portsmouth QEC-sized dry dock
8, not 13 Type 26's

Generally, disappointing.

[WhitestElephant]

I don't know about disappointing, it looks as if HMG has joined us fine people in a spot of fantasy fleet with the new light frigates

[ArmChairCivvy]

Something has been learned from the Libya conflict (when the Danish AF had to pack up and go home as all munitions had been expended). NATO is now FMSsing into a common pool (operated by OCCAR; can never be sure as the US sources do not favour the abbreviations derived from organisation names in French)

"
According to a notice posted on the website of DSCA, the potential sale would include “five hundred (500) Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) Guidance Kits, KMU-556 F/B; forty (40) JDAM Guidance Kits, KMU-557 F/B; one thousand five hundred (1,500) JDAM Guidance Kits, KMU-572 F/B; one thousand (1,000) MAU 210 E/B Computer Control Groups for 1,000-lb. Enhanced Paveway IIs; three hundred (300) MAU 210 E/B Computer Control Groups for GBU-49s; one thousand twenty-five (1,025) MAU 169 L/B Computer Control Groups for GBU-12s; one thousand three hundred fifty (1,350) Joint Programmable Fuzes, FMU-152 A/B; sixty (60) Bomb Fin Assembly and Airfoil Group 650-MXU K/B for GBU-12s; one thousand twenty-five (1,025) Bomb Fin Assembly and Airfoil Group, MXU-650 K/B AFG for GBU-12s.”
- UK should join, and bring down the inventory levels; thereby releasing money for new buys?

[Lord Jim]

It could be a way to save money but if so we should go the whole way and cancel SPEAR beyond Brimstone 2, and the two systems destined for the Wildcat. Yes the SPEAR programme is one of the few successful, or at least appears so, development programmes but it is another of the UKs bespoke programmes and the future products we intend to use on the F-35 could be replaced by the ones everybody else intends to use, namely the US made systems. It is the same old argument about retaining UK manufacturing, and the MoD budget being a jog retention scheme rather than being to provide the right kit for the Armed Forces at the right price and in the necessary quantities.

[whitelancer]

What you are saying is we should spend no money at all on research and development and none on manufacturing either. relying solely on the US for our military equipment. While the Defence budget should be used to produce the best Armed Forces we can, relying on other countries for our equipment is not a good idea, it provides us no guarantee of supply or the ability to modify or update equipment when required. A strong defence is dependent on a strong economy anything that the Defence budget can contribute to a strong economy is to be encouraged. Certainly the money could be spent better than it is at present but your idea seems to be one of despair!

[marktigger]

thats what a few i suspec want to turn the UK armed forces into the clone of the Americans because all things US are amazing. Nope they produce just as many Turkeys as anyone else does the USN is finding this one out.

[Lord Jim]

It is not for the Defence Budget to encourage a strong economy or build/maintain and industrial base, that is for other departments to do and for what they are funds for. The Defence budget is to maintain our country's Armed Forces to provide security for this country. And I am far from a believer that we should use all things American. There are many things the US make I would not want to inflict on our service men and women, but I would suggest that is you look just at NATO members, you will find more than enough equipment choices to meets any requirements the UK may have with little or no alteration. If a foreign manufacturer is happy to set up a production line or even a final assembly line in the UK at no cost to the UK's defence budget, in order to get a UK contract then great. If we use money from the Defence Budget, though cost increases to actually fund such a plant then no.

We couldn't bring ourselves to purchase second hand Leopard 2s because of political fall out, so we should ensure we world with the Germans on its successor as the Leo2 and CR2 mod. seem to be on roughly the same timeline. Do we need to actually build this new MBT in the UK, not really but we could build components. The HK416 is gain momentum as the new rifle for many NATO members. We could begin to bring it into service in the near future but we don't need to set up a productions line for it.

We actually produce a lot less in this country than many think. Yes we build warships, but historically it would be political suicide not to do so even if the RN might benefit. We currently produce the Typhoon and this will be supplanted by the F-35 modules but then what? We are not going to design and build a UK only platforms and any future collaboration will probably only have one assembly plant to keep costs down.

No what annoys me is ill informed media types and politicians who always wave the flag and demand any major contract is UK manufactured yet they do not want to spend the money to establish the necessary infrastructure or cannot through international treaties forbidding direct government support/intervention (unlike the French we do not always ignore such things).

AFVs - Team up with the Germans.
Aviation - Team up with the USA and France.
Warships - UK with foreign sub systems.
Infantry Kit - Team up with France and Germany
Support vehicles - Team up with Germany.

Our way forward with regards to the Defence Industry and exempting Warship production, is probably going to be more as a partner supplying sub assemblies than as a programme leader and prime manufacturer. This will retain skills and allow other countries to spread costs as well as ourselves. Mutual sales/orders will prevent one country demanding all manufacturing plus I doubt any European nation will want to carry the burden of all programme costs incurred in future platforms.

So UK manufactured content should not be a deal breaker when it comes to procuring equipment for our Armed Forces. There will always be a certain amount as we have the skills and the small and medium manufacturer able to do such work. It is the large companies such as BAe, being given work regardless of economic factors and increased cost to the defence budget in order to retain a manufacturing base that is wrong and unaffordable both now and in the future. BAe has already decided the companies future is in the USA and has shown little loyalty to the UK anyhow. It is simply another multi-national company and simply has plants in the UK, not a UK manufacturer.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The Defence budget is to maintain our country's Armed Forces to provide security for this country

- more than just the Forces, as the D & the 2nd S in SDSR

If a foreign manufacturer is happy to set up a production line or even a final assembly line in the UK at no cost to the UK's defence budget

- just look who makes most of the ASW kit (that the RN has been giving design input for)

HK

- buying and then selling HK cannot have been a "no cost" option, though I cannot quote the difference between those two respective considerations offhand

cannot through international treaties forbidding direct government support/intervention

- single sourcing in defence is allowed. 50% of defence proc is currently being done in that way (admittedly a lot of that with US companies, along with the UK ones)

as a partner supplying sub assemblies than as a programme leader and prime manufacturer.

- working well for missiles and the wider aerospace (though the future might not be bright for helicopters; or is there a silver lining to those dark clouds on the horizon?)

[marktigger]

given how much of the defence industrial base has been run down by the disasterous defence diversification plans of the blair/brown Govt the lack of investment in anything that wasn't for Afghan and creating a near monolopy company in the UK defence industry. Rebuilding a defence manufacturing base will be tricky. Look at things like Ajax assembled in this country from kits produced eleswhere yes the high value stuff is being done here but not the heavy engineering. Same goes for the Tide class. We have some projects like the CVF but far to few. We will be buying in more basic shell kit and fitting it out unless something changes.

[OldSoldier8888]

There could be a silver lining. Political pressure for a sensible reduction in the Aid budget is building up and if that were cut by,say, GBP200 million a year that could be used to fund defence expenditure to the sum of GBP2billion over the next ten years. Assuming Brexit occurs by 2020 reduced contributions to the EU budget might also be used in part to fund defence.Let us assume GBP200 million for seven years meaning an additional GBP1.4 billion.If a total of GBP3.4 billion were to be availlable what should be the priorities?Here are mine :
'''Extra 500 personnel for the RN at cost of GBP250 million
'Fund building of three Frigates at a shipyard such as Babcock or Cammell Laird at a cost of GBP1,5 billion
'Fund conversion of a civil ship into a Casualty receiving vessel at an approx cost of GBP350 million
" Purchase of additional MIvVs , say, 60 at a cost of GBP150 million to supplement presumed buy of 340. for Army
"Purchase of a Textron Scorpion fleet of aircraft for the RAF. These would serve as an aggressor unit for the RAF and RN, if required, and as a low level ground attack aircraft to supplement first line types.Purchase of 15 aircraft with spares at an approx cost of GBP 300 million.
"Allocation of GBP850 million for purchase of much needed missiles for the RN and RAF

[dmereifield]

I doubt we will see a reduction in the aid budget any time soon. If it were to happen it would likely be post 2020 and presumably would need to be a manifesto pledge by the Conservatives. It's politically tricky to reduce it so they would need to propose to change the target from 0.7% to the mean level of the G7 countries, or something like that. Would be a considerable saving.

[bobp]

Purchase of a Textron Scorpion fleet of aircraft for the RAF.

Yes I am a fan of this aircraft too, low cost and low cost/hour plus the ability to carry munitions. Definitely would like to see a Squadron for the Navy and the RAF, so for me a buy of 30 plus pylons for weapons and ground equipment and spares for say $750 million. Then you would need pilots and some ground crew for say 250 million that includes costs to train them. So we need a billion from foreign aid.

[ArmChairCivvy]

a fan of this aircraft too, low cost and low cost/hour

It will not win in the US as it does not meet the G's rqrmnt... is there talk of anyone else buying it? One off's normally turn out to be costly, in the end.

[bobp]

It will not win in the US as it does not meet the G's rqrmnt...

Wasn't talking about it in the context of the US trainer requirement, more on the what we (the UK) could do with a couple of billion from the Foreign Aid Pot.

[shark bait]

Could no nothing, can't buy military equipment from the aid budget.

[ArmChairCivvy]

There is money that can go to aid, crisis response or to enhancing MoD kit, depending on what needs to be countered.

NAO puts it like this, re: the Joint Security Fund
"The total Plan for 2015–2025 was £166 billion,
made up of a core programme of £153 billion, ‘headroom’ of £9 billion and a contingency
of £4 billion. The total Plan budget for 2016–2026 after the Review commitments
are included is £178 billion, with a contingency of £5 billion. The value of the core
programme has therefore increased by £20 billion. The Department plans to fund the
new commitments announced in the Review from several sources (see Figure 4):
•
additional funding of £6.4 billion from the newly created Joint Security Fund;"

[shark bait]

That's the Joint Security Fund not the aid budget.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Joint Security Fund not the aid budget.

Boolean algebra:
Aid budget not part of defence(kit) budget
Defence budget not part of aid budget
JSF can be part of
- aid budget
- defence (kit) budget
, or neither

I think I went over this with Ron re: all defence expenditure being (not) held by the MoD, but can also be allocations