SDSR 2015 General News & Discussion

[Jake1992]

That was April 2015 and as we know the econemy grew through 15 to 16
Even if you take in to account the depreciated pound it still comes to £2.26tn

[ArmChairCivvy]

My mobile phone tells me the following (taking a shine to this off-topic):

Gross domestic product 2015, PPP
(millions of
Ranking
Economy
international dollars)
1
China
19,814,369
2
United States
18,036,648
3
India
7,998,278
4
Japan
4,738,294
5
Germany
3,857,073
6
Russian Federation
3,579,826
7
Brazil
3,198,898
8
Indonesia
2,848,028
9
United Kingdom
2,700,547
10
France
2,647,706
11
Mexico
2,193,399
12
Italy
2,190,679

Ohh- noo,
we are below Indonesia, and almost on par with Mexico (that just got roughed over)

[Caribbean]

I think you need to check those figures. A quick survey of the interweb shows that the Indian, Russian and Brazilian figures are all waaaaay too high. The Indian by a factor of 4, the other two are around half the figures you give. The US GDP is also c. $18.5 tr vs China's $11.4 tr

[ArmChairCivvy]

Exactly (it is only the World Bank; PPP though).

Enigmatically tried to insert some sense into this, and as that was not working, I just put on a show case "how much can you twist it".

Do not trust your mobile phone; thinking is not forbidden.

[Caribbean]

OK - with you now - that's what happens when you come late to a conversation.

[abc123]

OK, I stand corrected, with UK GDP of about 1900 bln. pounds and defence spending of 46 billions pounds, it's about 2,4% of GDP. If my math serves me.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ssible.pdf

Pages 5 and 24 of the report.

[Ron5]

All totally irrelevant because the Treasury keeps stuffing non-defence items into the defence budget. Might as well be 5% or 10% of GDP if only 1% represents actual spending on defence stuff.

I continue to be amazed that the great british public buys this nonsense. The government claims top 5 spending yet the UK army, navy & airforce aren't top 5 in numbers. Just doesn't add up. You'd think even the idiot man on the street could figure that out.

[LordJim]

But the idiot man in he street it not concerned about defence except terrorism in the UK, and even then would prioritise a multitude of other areas above defence.

[ArmChairCivvy]

But the idiot man in he street it not concerned about defence except terrorism in the UK

Tony Blair knew that and used it a lot in his argumentation.

The further "force for good" extensions have faded away; by now even in the US where the Obama advisors were overly influenced by the events in Rwanda, long ago.

[abc123]

All totally irrelevant because the Treasury keeps stuffing non-defence items into the defence budget. Might as well be 5% or 10% of GDP if only 1% represents actual spending on defence stuff.

I continue to be amazed that the great british public buys this nonsense. The government claims top 5 spending yet the UK army, navy & airforce aren't top 5 in numbers. Just doesn't add up. You'd think even the idiot man on the street could figure that out.

THIS.

[shark bait]

What numbers? we should all know numbers does not equal quality, which is where the money is really spent.

Could do what the Saudis do and have lots of nice kit, but never train, so their shit.
Or do what India do and have lots of poor kit, so their shit.

Good quality kit, with good quality training speaks louder than numbers. (of course number on top of that doesn't hurt). Just saying "aren't top 5 in numbers." doesn't mean shit.

[Defiance]

Just saying "aren't top 5 in numbers." doesn't mean shit.

This.

Could we do better in spending (be it quantity of efficiency of use)? Of course we could, but that is such a cr*p metric to include as 'evidence'.

[LordJim]

But the UK has totally gone for Quality/Capability over capacity for the past three decades and while we are in the top tier in some areas our Armed Forces have been hollowed out that they have no resilience to cover maintenance schedules effectively let alone actual combat losses. I would rather the RAF concentrate on the Typhoon and have 9+ squadrons of these in service and just have 40-50 F-35Bs purchased for the Navy alone.

[shark bait]

That focus on Quality is exactly the right thing to do, although that quality needs to be more than just on the surface, and the hollowing out needs to stop.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The 2015 SDSR with the "promised" recovery in the size of the surface fleet might reveal its last, well-kept secret as we should this month get to hear about NSS and what that means in terms of T31 (spec, build strategy, targeted quantity). At the same time more "peripheral" capacities are disappearing: Diligence gone, Ocean as an assault carrier getting a part-timer as a replacement, no plan elaborated for Argus replacement (at least in its casualty receiving role).
- you can't say that the unplanned production of two additional reactor cores would have its impact on a peripheral capability. On the contrary, the SSN numbers available returning to a healthy level seems to be a long way off

TA recruitment nowhere near the goal might mean that to field a capable expeditionary force of around 50,000 personnel we would need to count in the French component of the Joint expeditionary intervention force?

The procurement of Maritime Patrol Aircraft seems to be on schedule (the first two coming from the recently placed order for 17 as the first from that batch, in 2019, and against all odds/ speculation, with weapons - Harpoon still to be confirmed by name rather than through implication of what "with US weapons" entails).

The dates in service stretch far out, generally well into 2020s ( e.g. even the start for the frigates replacement), the incomprehensible 2025 for the Strike Bdes becoming operational on land etc. etc. The pound has recovered somewhat but while it was touching its recent lows "somebody" already counted that there is a £10bn short fal that has arisen. We never got to know what the £38bn that was eliminated consisted of, and I am not holding my breath for any better information on this recent figure being offered
- it is clear, though, that further savings are being sought. Some of the speculation bears heavily on readiness... not good

Why am I being moany this early in the morning? Simply, because it is not clearly spelt out how the current Government policies and procurement plans contribute to the effective projection of British political and military power and influence. "Utility of force" states clearly that "Force" cannot be respected unless it can be brought to bear effectively where (ability to deploy) and when (readiness) needed.

[LordJim]

Just remember the Armed Forces are simply a number of bullet points on a reference sheet to Politicians. They got away with Iraq and Afghanistan and they have set a precedent in their eyes, especially the treasury, who now think they can get away with spending as little as possible and bail themselves and the Government out with UORs. Makes the whole SDSR process an exercise in spin doesn't it. In my eyes what make it worse is we have taken the moral high ground and lecture other NATO countries on not spending enough when it is only our highly paid Creative Accountants who make it seem we meet the NATO target.

The only way things will really change is if a real shooting war erupts between NATO and Russia and they all go to Brown Alert, or a number of cruise ships carrying 1000s of Argentinian "Tourists", land on the Falklands before our "New" Navy is ready.

What is really sad is that we can afford the investment our Armed Forces need if it was given the attention it needs. Simply put using some of the funds allocated to providing "Soft" power, that has failed as a strategy, the 10 year plan would be fully funded with enough room to cover eventualities. Even if we froze the budget in question and diverted resources the situation would improve dramatically.

It will be interesting to see how far into the future SDSR 2020 projects itself in order to appear we are properly equipping and manning our Armed Forces. Will the Government mention 2050?

[marktigger]

thing is the treasury complained about the UOR process not delivering value for money. The Armed forces discoverd Just in time supply didn't and UOR's caused more complications than they solved leading to Important items like weapons having no long term support leading to expensive small scale purchases of of spare parts

[The Armchair Soldier]

The Times is reporting that there will be a reivision of SDSR2015 after the General Election due to a funding crisis:

Military is fighting ‘£20bn cash crisis’

The core plan for Britain’s armed forces will be revised after the election because of a funding crisis, The Times can reveal.

The unravelling of the 2015 defence review is a blow for Sir Michael Fallon, the defence secretary. Sources questioned whether he could remain in post after an anticipated Conservative election victory in June given the problems that he has presided over at the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

Read More: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news ... -rnv9mb9mp (subscription required)

Some Tweets from their Defence Editor:

[dmereifield]

Can only be a good thing, surely?

[LordJim]

Only if a hole of between £10Bn and £20Bn over the next decade can be considered a good thing. That is the figure being leaked by insiders as announced on Radio 4 this morning. I cannot see this being filled post election so something will have to give when they revisit the 2015 SDSR. Most likely a significant number of programmes will be stretched to generate saving short term, but they never learn and this would come back to bite any future Government in the backside. Alternatively they could cancel a number of major programmes like MIV or the T-31 canned and the GP T-23s go by 2020. Could we only have one F-35 squadron operational until after 2027 when the second forms. The list of cuts, cancellations and/or delays is not pretty. Forget the Fur coat no knickers idea this is going to be a bin bag and nothing else scenario is the worse happens and further hollowing and salami slicing occurs.

[dmereifield]

I was more optimistically hoping that this would lead to increased funding to fill the hole. Given the hints that the DfID budget would be spent more wisely, and the need to show our commitment to NATO (esp to reassure our Eastern European firends and strengthen our Brexit negotiations) and demonstrate our outward looking post-Brexit credentials, we might see the hole plugged with additional resources

[MRCA]

What happened in 2015 was the kids were allowed lose in the sweet shop again because the parent in charge was pretty weak. Que a lot of shinny kit particularly highly expensive American kit from the wish lists was granted to make everyone feel good. On top of this as has long been predicted the spectre of the tubes of black dead in the shape of the submarine force are begining to suck the life out of the budget thats why these headlines have started to appear realism of just exactly how much the replacement program is going to cost.

What needs to happen in any future defence review is a return to realism. Stop pretending that the only way to do things is be a mini US and look to see how and what is deployed by medium level power around the world not the superpowers of the US, china and Russia. We are a regional power with the ability to deploy globally. We can never ever compete on numbers we're a highly trained specialist force.

any future review needs to cut front line units and build up the logistics and suspport arms to ensure that what we have is deployable and robust. Which is not what we've got now.

[Gabriele]

If it is that bad, then MIV is a goner. Only one purchase which is both politically "neutral" (few are going to really notice it not happening) and not tied to any signed contract.

Without MIV, that abort that is Army 2020 Refine can hopefully be turned into something more realistic, useful and which does not remove supports in favors of an unbalanced number of infantry battalions.

[LordJim]

I have a feeling those two tranche 1 Typhoon squadrons may also vanish with some excuse like the remaining fleet is going to have its updates accelerated. What I really fear is a two tier structure especially in the Army where we will have one or two brigades actually able to be deployed and the rest unable to do so through lack of serviceable kit, manpower issues and so on. Unfortunately for the Military, the current situation with health, social care, not wanting to put up taxes for example means the Government will be able to get away with pretty major reductions in defence capability and capacity, especially as we are now have few boots on the ground overseas. No one is going to see defence as a critical issue during the election and we will then have the same lot in power until 2023. Remember the 2% figure is only safe until 2020, so if they revisit the 2015 SDSR, and work out what the 10 year procurement budget can actually afford few on here are going to like the result. Here's how the pointy end to end up looking like:

Royal Navy.
1 Carrier in service, 1 in long term reserve.
12 Escorts in service with 6 T-26 under construction)
7 Astute Class SSNs
3-4 Dreadnought class SSBNs (building)
3 Commando Battalions.
3 Merlin ASW Squadrons (including AEW&C role)
3 Merlin Commando Squadrons.
3 Wildcat Squadrons
(Remember FAA Squadrons are often only 6-8 aircraft strong)

Royal Air Force.
5 Typhoon Squadrons
1 F-35 Squadron
1 E-3D Squadron
1 C-17 Squadron
2 A400 Squadrons
1 Voyager Squadron
3 Chinook Squadrons
(Nowadays most AF Squadrons are at most 12 aircraft strong usually less)

Army
2 Armoured Regiments
4 Armoured Infantry Battalions
2 Recce Regiments
2 Parachute Battalions
8 Light Role Infantry Battalions.
1 Armoured Artillery Regiment
2 Light Artillery Regiments
1 Air Defence Regiment
2 AAC Apache Regiments
1 AAC Wildcat Regiment
!AAC Regiments are usually made up of 3-3 Squadrons, each of 6-8 aircraft)

Feel free to blow all this out of the water but having seen first hand how fast the MoD adjusts is budgets and priorities to try to balance the books watch this space.

[Caribbean]

Hmm - so a deficit of £2b per annum (out of £38b) is going to halve the size of the armed forces? I suspect that you are slightly overstating your case.