SDSR 2015 General News & Discussion

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[dmereifield]

Sale of MOD properties continues:

So disappointing to see RM Stonehouse on the list(I don't know the other sites) - also there is speculation that the citadel isn't safe either!! The loss of these sites (in Plymouth) for peanuts is so short sighted. I don't know anything about the quality of the accommodation but presumably this isn't going to be well received by RM families (there is no disclosed plan on where or when they will be relocated) which surely won't help morale or retention

[GibMariner]

Written statement by Mark Lancaster:

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is nearing the completion of an ambitious Estate Optimisation Strategy programme which will provide a plan for a smaller, but significantly better Defence Estate to meet the needs of the Armed Forces. The MOD expects to announce the finalised Estate Optimisation Strategy later this year and can today confirm the expected release of 13 sites, shown below. These will contribute some £225 million toward the MOD’s £1 billion target for land release sales as set out in Spending Review 2015.
These sites also contribute to the Government commitment to provide land for 160,000 homes in this Parliament. The intent to dispose of these 13 sites will provide land for up to 17,017 homes (of which some 12,565 are expected to materialise in this Parliament). In addition to the sites announced in January and March of this year, this represents the expected provision of land for up to 14,700 homes this Parliament against the MOD target of 55,000. The remainder of the target will be met through other rationalisation activity including the Reserves estate, the Training estate and MOD accommodation.
The Estate Optimisation Strategy aims to better support military capability and force generation; allow the formation of clusters of sites which facilitate the collocation of similar functions and thereby reduce running costs through shared resources; as well as dispose of under-utilised sites for which there is no longer a long-term Defence requirement.
Over the coming weeks further work carried out in consultation with all stakeholders including the Trade Unions will determine the future reprovision of each site. The release of land by the MOD has the potential to provide land for new homes and we will continue to engage with impacted Local Authorities to determine how the Department’s assessment of housing unit allocation against each site may be considered as part of the authority’s Local Plan. I acknowledge that these moves will have an impact upon civilian and military staff; the Department is making arrangements to provide for units and functions based at sites which will not have a future Defence requirement. I will make a further announcement setting out the Estate Optimisation Strategy with details on the sequencing and timing of these moves later this year.

• RAF Henlow (Bedfordshire)
  Middlewick Ranges (Essex)
  Amport House (Andover)
  Land at Harley Hill (Catterick)
  Chalgrove Airfield (Oxford) Transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency
  Colerne Airfield (Chippenham)
  Azimghur Barracks (Chippenham)
  Prince William of Gloucester Barracks (Grantham)
  Old Dalby (Melton Mowbray)
  Venning Barracks (Telford)
  Parsons Barracks (Donnington)
  Southwick Park (Fareham)
  Royal Marines Stonehouse (Plymouth)

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... 6/HCWS133/

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod- ... o-be-built

[bobp]

These will contribute some £225 million

Mmmn what does selling all that property buy ------ 2 F35B or 1 T31

[arfah]

-<>-<>-<>-

[bobp]

May also pay for the biscuits in the officers mess to go with their morning cuppa.

[marktigger]

May also pay for the biscuits in the officers mess to go with their morning cuppa.

extra messing offices pay on their mess bills covers that. They get exactly the same funds allocated to them as an OR they just pay for all the extra bits!

[marktigger]

Looking at the current situation it really would appear SDSR 15 has been overtaken by events in a similar way that 9/11 changed the situation round that SDSR. (And introduced the new chapter which has left us in the position we are in today.)
I do wonder if the advice on world situation coming out of the foreign office was incomplete or was spun to generate the impression of a benign environment with no major change in threat in order to meet the governments demand to keep spending to a minimum. And whether the 10 year warning idea that governments have tried to follow since the 1920's is still being used as the model for defence planning.
It would appear to me that SDSR 2015 is massively out of step with world events and the assumptions that have been made in its drafting are nearly fictional.

[dmereifield]

Looking at the current situation it really would appear SDSR 15 has been overtaken by events in a similar way that 9/11 changed the situation round that SDSR. (And introduced the new chapter which has left us in the position we are in today.)
I do wonder if the advice on world situation coming out of the foreign office was incomplete or was spun to generate the impression of a benign environment with no major change in threat in order to meet the governments demand to keep spending to a minimum. And whether the 10 year warning idea that governments have tried to follow since the 1920's is still being used as the model for defence planning.
It would appear to me that SDSR 2015 is massively out of step with world events and the assumptions that have been made in its drafting are nearly fictional.

Absolutely agree. The problem is that those that oversaw SDSR2015 are still in place,or are at other posts within HMG and Whitehall, and thus nobody will want to lose face by declaring it a balls up. Now there are some recent unexpected events that could be used, if May/Hammond/Fallon have the political will, to justify a revisit of defence policy - Brexit and Trump....even if its not an official re-review, at least a significant increase in defence spending, in a strategic manner, could help rectify things...
I'm hoping that Hammond's first Autumn statement will be positive in this regard....

[ArmChairCivvy]

even if its not an official re-review

Call it a mid-term review... of the Strategic Review?
- I think we have a thread here, ready and waiting

[GibMariner]

The Minister for Defence Procurement has announced the start of the Defence Industrial Policy Refresh consultation

The announcement was made at a Defence Growth Partnership Ministerial meeting which was attended by a number of key defence suppliers.

The meeting was co-chaired by Jesse Norman, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and Allan Cook Chairman of Atkins. This work is being led by the MOD but is closely aligned with the work on the National Industrial Strategy which BEIS are leading.

As part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 (SDSR15), the Government committed to develop a refreshed defence industrial policy. This will make clear that competition remains our preferred approach, delivering value for money and incentivising an innovative and productive industrial base. It will outline the further action we will take to help the UK’s defence and security industries, in particular Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs), to grow and compete successfully. The development of this policy is an important contribution to the new National Security Objective to promote our prosperity and is closely linked with other work in the MOD to promote innovation, exports and skills.

Minister for Defence Procurement, Harriett Baldwin said:

"I am delighted to be able to formally launch the consultation on refreshing Defence Industrial Policy Refresh. This is a milestone in meeting our SDSR15 commitment and presents a unique opportunity for our defence industry, academics and non-traditional defence suppliers to make a valuable contribution to the continuing development of our Industrial Policy.

I therefore call upon all our stakeholders, particularly SMEs, to engage in the consultation over the next 6 weeks to help us to refine our policy to not only deliver the best equipment for defence at the best value for the tax payer, but to support an innovative, prosperous and internationally competitive defence industry."

https://whitehall-admin.publishing.serv ... iew=681499

[marktigger]

wonder if Bombardier will get any business

[LordJim]

A good start would be actually placing more orders and more frequently.

[andrew98]

A good start would be actually placing ANY orders and KEEP DOING SO frequently.

Corrected that for you (corrections in bold :p )

[ArmChairCivvy]

Defencesynergia has offered a wide-ranging critique (I think thats what they are there for; not quite sure who is backing the forum as there never seems to be any discussion?)
_will quote some points as a "progress report" for the recent SDSR:

" Next year sees Torbay decommissioned, thus leaving 3 superannuated T boats and 3 Astute class. Because these submarines are increasingly expensive, in both time and cost, to run and maintain, submarine availability is of grave concern. The long term operational situation can only be described as pitiful; not surprisingly when we can only manage a construction rate running at about eight years per boat."

"land forces which, now being based in UK, are unable to go anywhere in a hurry. These same officials task the Royal Air Force (RAF) knowing that the ability of the RAF to operate in more than penny packets is limited by reduced trained and skilled manpower, a lack of combat ready aircrew and aircraft and a sclerotic sustainment and maintenance base."

"weapons stockpiles that are calculated on cost per round rather than on any scientific rate of effort; a spares resupply system that can only function efficiently when all the variables – military and commercial – are working and in-place and, the crowning glory, an MOD/Political system that seems to spend more time defending itself than the nation, all point to built in, systemic failure."

Say no more?

OK, and then, perhaps time to offer some positives, too?
- Single Task Force in the RN starting to take shape
- helicopter situation rectified and stabilised for a decade ahead
- the Bde of Gurkhas being reconstituted (not counted as Regulars, so when the shortfall in Reserves becomes all too apparent, heres a new way to count the three elements together, and hit the target numbers... wasnt the training required in the Reserves just halved as for being able to declare individuals/ units battle ready?)
- Typhoon numbers upheld. OSDs much extended.
- ISTAR fleet on the up
- MIV moving ahead (but at what price to the rest of the AFV fleet?)
- renewal of deterrence confirmed

[shark bait]

submarine availability is of grave concern

It really is. Always lots of talk around here about returning to 30+ escorts, but I couldn't advocate that until the submarine availability is increased. It is nothing other than inadequate at present, and will be for a long time into the future, until well after the Dreadnought class is delivered.

I always wondered what are the reasons for the Astutes having a single crew, and the V boats are double crewed? Could adopting a Port and Starboard crew for the attack subs provide a mechanism to increase sub availability?

Single Task Force in the RN starting to take shape

What is the "Single Task Force" ?

[ArmChairCivvy]

What is the "Single Task Force" ?

Carrier group sailing together with ARG.

Without the ARG we can basically just go and throw guineas to break somebody else's windows... for more effect some boots will also need to be put on the ground
... CEPP in action, so to say.

BTW, once the STF has sailed, what else is there:
- too few SSNs to do any sea denial beyond some regional action
- a deterrent that needs to be combined with somebody else's to be bullet proof
- a couple of escorts to provide a presence (with other navies) in choke points
- an MCM fleet for home waters to keep the ports open and trade flowing

As Bugs Bunny used to say: that is it, folks!

[shark bait]

How is it starting to take shape? I have missed anything official beyond some renders? do we know what the group will look like yet?

• Assuming the group contains 4 escorts, that leaves us with 2 escorts for patrols some where else.
• Assuming on SSN with the group, and 1 'east of suez' that leaves us with one for tasks some where else.

Not in great shape, but not bad.

Perhaps with an additional three escorts though we could maintain another task, then sustaining a presence in both North & South Atlantic, as well as the gulf out of Bahrain, and an extra task, maybe the Indo-Pacific region out of Singapore? Perhaps with extra Astute crews we could squeeze out some valuable extra availability from the SSN's too. In short, it would only require a modest uplift in ambition and funding and we would have a credible service that could sustain a global presence rather well.

[ArmChairCivvy]

do we know what the group will look like yet?
- Gaby inspired a good discussion on the ARG PART of it very recently

Assuming the [CARRIER] group contains 4 escorts, that leaves us with 2 escorts for patrols some where else.
- YEP, FROM THE HUNDREDS OF ENTRIES ON THE TOPIC (HERE, AND ON TD) THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CONCENSUS
- LEAVES THE TWO FOR THE PINCH POINTS ON THE ROUTE FROM THE GULF TO EUROPE

Assuming on SSN with the group, and 1 'east of suez' that leaves us with one for tasks some where else.
- YEP, SEA DENIAL IN A BIG PLACE LIKE THE INDIAN OCEAN WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE THE TWO
- IN A MORE LIMITED, FALKLANDS LIKE SCENARIO, EVEN THE ONLY ONE THAT COULD BE SPARED WOULD HAVE AN EFFECT - DETERRENCE IS MORE THAN HALF OF THE EFFECT

CAPITALS only to keep the added text separate from the original quote

With taking shape I meant that in about 4 years we will have the ships to make up that capability (but there is the Valley of Death, in capability terms, for a year or two from 2018)
- lets hope the life extended subs will keep going; in addition to the already happening/ happened refuellings there is one more nuclear core built into the schedules (before the Dreadnoughts take them all for a good number of years)

[abc123]

The carriers got a small mention in Theresa May's speech in Philadelphia yesterday (32:00):

So, the Right Honourable Theresa May says that she will increase spending for defence in each year of this Parliament.

Opinions?

[dmereifield]

Hasn't that been the case since SDSR2015? A real terms increase of 0.5% per year

[Ron5]

Hasn't that been the case since SDSR2015? A real terms increase of 0.5% per year

The MoD are very careful to talk about an increase in the Defence budget and not spending on defence.

The two are very different things. The budget has increased because a number of items not directly related to spending on actually defending the UK, have been transferred into the MoD's budget in order to meet the 2% target.

Actual spending on defending the country has gone down and will continue to go down as evidenced by the massive reductions in the size of the forces and the sizes of their fleets of active aircraft, ships & vehicles.

This confidence trick behavior (shyster) is a very notable characteristic of UK governments.

Sorry to be off topic.

[Jake1992]

Ron5 it's clear that true spending on defence is far from the 2% minimum ( not target )
The 2016/17 defence budget was £36bn ( if memory severs me right ), the U.K. gdp as of April 2016 was £2.13tn according to most economic sites it varies very little.

2% of £2.13tn equates to £42.6bn witch shows our armed services are underfunded by over £6bn a year. Just think what they could do with that extra money.

The real defence spend of this country with out fiddling the books is closer to 1.6-1.7 % of gdp

Sorry from the off topic

[abc123]

Ron5 it's clear that true spending on defence is far from the 2% minimum ( not target )
The 2016/17 defence budget was £36bn ( if memory severs me right ), the U.K. gdp as of April 2016 was £2.13tn according to most economic sites it varies very little.

2% of £2.13tn equates to £42.6bn witch shows our armed services are underfunded by over £6bn a year. Just think what they could do with that extra money.

The real defence spend of this country with out fiddling the books is closer to 1.6-1.7 % of gdp

Sorry from the off topic

Yep.

And that should be constantly repeated.

[Enigmatically]

Ron5 it's clear that true spending on defence is far from the 2% minimum ( not target )
The 2016/17 defence budget was £36bn ( if memory severs me right ), the U.K. gdp as of April 2016 was £2.13tn according to most economic sites it varies very little.

2% of £2.13tn equates to £42.6bn witch shows our armed services are underfunded by over £6bn a year. Just think what they could do with that extra money.

The real defence spend of this country with out fiddling the books is closer to 1.6-1.7 % of gdp

Sorry from the off topic

Yep.

And that should be constantly repeated.

Unfortunately it probably will be constantly repeated. I say unfortunately because it is garbage. There is one small error in the basis, which makes the conclusion worthless.

The UK GDP is $2.13tn, NOT £2.13tn

Do the figures in sterling (or indeed divide by todays exchange rate of 1.17) and you discover that the UK defence budget is 2% of GDP