SDSR 2015 General News & Discussion

[MRCA]

I suspect sdsr refresh will to move right purchases involving foreign currency. So I suspect we'll see f35 purchases beyond the 48 going way right to post 2030, like wise apache those last 14 maybe subject to review. P8 numbers could be revised dwn.

Tornado has about 18months left, last weapon from tornado onto typhoon will be brimstone(not being used much on operations compared to paveway 4), stormshadow is with the RAF for operational evaluation, you could potientially retire it early but then a Sqn is currently suppporting shader so do you double the typhoon committeemen to 2 sqns a huge ask to cover it or reduce your commitment saying Isis is defeated.

Typhoon tranche 1 being retained mainly for qra as a 7 Sqn fleet is very flexible and extremely capable.

Hercules retention is almost purely to support the SF so that is unlikely to be reversed.

Could see Albions being put up for sale.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I suspect we'll see f35 purchases beyond the 48 going way right to post 2030

Justin Bronk (the one who writes for RUSI about F-35s) at one point was holding his finger on this item (as a gap in provisioning the funds within the F-35 prgrm?):
"
In gaining optimum value from the advanced technology of the F-35, interoperability
is a key concern. Enhanced management of F-35 accrued data could suffer due to competing
interoperability requirements within the current equipment programme. Achieving
interoperability sufficient to employ the abilities of the F-35 to full potential
will likely be an expensive process given the number of platforms that will
require upgrading and [ as evidenced by? This excerpt is puled out from a transcript of verbal discussion for the benefit of the Defence Committee] the £350 million cost of upgrading the communications
and Tactical Information Exchange Capability on the small front-line
Tornado GR4 and Harrier GR9 fleets in 2008–09.

The US Battlefield Airborne Communications Node system which provided a theatre-wide datalink relay
and translation capability in Afghanistan cost around $1 billion. This raises
a question about the balance of investment. [ ... ] The current equipment
programme does not appear to provide for a coherent strategy to approach
this requirement."

So up with the £350m benchmark (small number of a/c covered), down with the $1bn by doing the FX... and we are talking something like a half bn not provisioned for?
- is this the "stink" that the The Times article was being used for, to tease out?

Add his parting shot:

"Ultimately, if the UK effectively upgrades the necessary cross-platform interoperability,
the efficiency and impact of the F-35 will be greatly enhanced. If the UK does not invest
in this manner, we shall risk wasting a significant proportion of the F-35’s potential
capabilities. "

[ArmChairCivvy]

As we are into the "unannounced mini-review" by now, let's just revisit what NAO said in January:

"6
The Strategic Defence and Security Review (the Review) added £24.4 billion of
new commitments, the majority of which are to be funded within the existing Plan.
Significant new procurements include the Mechanised Infantry Vehicle and Poseidon
Maritime Patrol Aircraft, which alone add £5.5 billion of additional spend over 10 years.
The Review also announced additions to current and future capabilities, including life
extension of the first production tranche of Typhoon fast jets and the acceleration of
purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft
7
The requirement to support new equipment entering service puts increasing
pressure on the £91 billion support budget.
[...] while some equipment due to be
retired is now being retained with an extended life [requiring support not budgeted for]

Sources of funding for the Plan
8
The Department has allocated all headroom previously set aside in the
Plan, removing its flexibility to accommodate additional capability requirements.
In previous years the Department created ‘headroom’ to provide scope to meet emerging
priority requirements, thus increasing flexibility within the Plan. To help meet its new
commitments, the Department redistributed £9.5 billion of headroom from the 2015 Plan
and £1.2 billion that would otherwise have been rolled forward as headroom in the 2016
Plan. With the redistribution of all headroom, any further capability requirements during
the lifetime of the Plan period will have to be met through a reprioritisation of existing
commitments, or a reallocation of funding from the wider Defence budget"

[ArmChairCivvy]

Some numbers (quantities) given to the Parliament as recently as in April; somehow even how many Ch2's will be refurbed is down to the experimenting with SEG... where tanks are only part of the OpFor:

"

245 AJAX Reconnaissance vehicles: surveillance and fire control;
93 Ares Reconnaissance Support: carries Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Weapon or troops for dismounted patrols;
51 Argus Combat Engineer Reconnaissance;
112 Athena Command: mobile battlefield headquarters;
38 Atlas Recovery: to recover damaged and immobilised vehicles; and
50 Apollo Support Repair: repairs and tows damaged vehicles.255

128.According to the MoD, the new multi-role AJAX armoured fighting vehicle will transform the Army’s medium armour and advanced intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) capability.256 Furthermore, it will be able to conduct sustained, expeditionary, full spectrum operations with a reduced logistic footprint, in a wide range of combat situations and operating environments. The Chief of the General Staff regarded the procurement of the AJAX vehicles as an important component of the strategy to counter the re-emergence of the state-on-state threat and the ability of potential adversaries to conduct “anti-access area denial”.257

129.Those AJAX vehicles assigned to the Strike Brigades will provide the capability to project combat power across distances of up to 2,000km; to disperse and concentrate very rapidly; and to dominate ground and population mass.258 The Chief of the General Staff described AJAX as genuinely networked and genuinely mobile, with good firepower and good protection. He also explained that the Army was taking a “methodical and deliberate” approach to the AJAX capability and the plan was to “test it to destruction and to experiment with it” at an early stage so that, by 2021, the Army would have a known initial operating capability.259

130.Each regiment equipped with AJAX will have between 50 and 60 vehicles,260 and the two Strike Brigades are each predicted to have two AJAX regiments and two mechanised infantry battalions. Once the Army reaches full operating capability, the Chief of the General Staff expected that one of those brigades would be at 30 days’ notice to move.261

[...]

Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank and Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles

133.The Army has 227 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, a reduction of 98 from 2010. These are used by the Armoured Infantry Brigades as the Army’s all-weather, mobile, protected, direct-fire anti-tank capability. Challenger 2 is best suited for high-tempo mobile operations against an army of similar sophistication and is equipped with weapons that can engage a wide range of targets—in particular enemy Armoured Fighting Vehicles.267 The tanks are currently divided between the deployable field force, training establishments, storage and long-term maintenance.268 In the context of the restructuring of the Army post-SDSR 2015, the intention is to have four, rather than three, mounted close combat regiments comprising of two Challenger 2 and two AJAX regiments.

134.Challenger 2 is subject to a £700 million Life Extension programme269. This will address key aspects of obsolescence in order for the Army to keep it in service until 2035. In December 2016, the MoD announced that the two preferred bidders for the project’s competitive phase would now develop upgrades. However, the MoD were unable to provide us with any information on the number of tanks that would be upgraded, as this would depend on both the solutions presented by the bidders and lessons identified by the Strike Experimentation Group.270

135.The Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle provides protection and support to infantry soldiers on foot.271 In combination, the Warrior and its infantry personnel form a tightly integrated unit. These vehicles are currently part of a programme, Armoured Infantry 2026, which is tasked with the delivery of an upgraded vehicle platform, and extending the out-of-service date from 2025 to 2040. The Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme element of this is expected to cost some £1.3 billion.272

136.The Army’s Warrior fleet (including all variants) stands at 769. As with the Challenger 2 life extension programme, the MoD was unable to provide an estimate of upgraded Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles which the Armoured Infantry 2026 programme would deliver as, again, this was subject to assessment and consultation.

137.Equally, the MoD refused to provide, us with information on the numbers of Challenger 2 tanks and Warrior vehicles held at specific levels of readiness—as to do so, they contended, would “compromise operational security, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces”.273

Mechanised Infantry Vehicle and Multi-Role Vehicle (Protected)

138.The Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV) is a new programme which was announced in SDSR 2015.274 It is currently in ‘concept’ pre-design phase, but the MoD’s intention is to procure an off-the-shelf design which would be equipped with a minimum number of UK sourced sub-systems such as remote weapons station, communications, battle management system and seating.275 The MIV will equip the mechanised infantry within the new Strike Brigades. According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, it is expected that the MoD will buy between 300 and 350 MIVs with a potential initial operating capability in 2023. However, as the project is in ‘concept’ pre-design phase, the MoD is unable to provide costings for the programme.276

139.In addition, the MoD’s Equipment Plan, set out the requirements for a Multi-Role Vehicle (Protected) (MRV-P) to provide the Army with a family of adaptable, protected general purpose vehicles for command and logistics.277 Two classes of vehicle are required. MRV-P Group 1 will provide logistics, command and control, and liaison, while MRV-P Group 2 will provide specialist platforms, including Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) and protected ambulances.

140.In January 2017, it was confirmed that the Army had started negotiations to purchase the Oshkosh Joint Light Tactical Vehicle from the United States to fulfil the MRV-P Group 1 requirement.278 The expectation is that 750 such vehicles will be acquired. For MRV-P Group 2, which will require a larger platform, we understand that three potential suppliers remain in the competition. A contract is expected to be agreed within two years, and initially the Army is expected to buy 150 APCs and 80 ambulances, with this later rising to 300 of each if the money is available.279"

[LordJim]

"Army’s all-weather, mobile, protected, direct-fire anti-tank capability"

This sums up all that is wrong with how we go about equipping the Armed Forces. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and looks like a duck it's a TANK!!!!!

[ArmChairCivvy]

all-weather, mobile, protected, direct-fire anti-tank capability

Hmm, the Dutch ticked all those boxes, and replaced their tanks with Apaches, firing mm-radar guided Hellfires
- they forgot persistence/ immediate reaction
- and now they regret it (and their Armoured infantry is under 1st Panzer... who still possess tanks!)

[LordJim]

Does anyone intentionally make a fair weather Tank?!

[ArmChairCivvy]

LordJim wrote:
all-weather, mobile, protected, direct-fire anti-tank capability

It is easy to think that nothing has been missed out on that list... until you
go Dutch
... in my opinion, there are far too many DefSecs in the major (... like more than 5 mln inhabitants
) European countries, just reading documents, without any first hand experience of what the words mean

PS. My second wager on this one is that the majority f them have a Law Degree... if you, SOBs of the General Staff and lower, mislead ME on any of these documents that I have to sign, for the decision, then tremble... as I will take you to court, strip you of your rank.... and... and; well, by that time none of them will be there)