Navy Command to 2030
Re: Naval Command to 2030
From memory, an 8-cell Mk41 was $1.5 - $3m, depending on the numbers ordered in a year. The TLAM control stuff was $40m. I would have to find the article again to confirm that , however
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Naval Command to 2030
If that Mk41 costing is correct then that is small change for the flexibility fitting the system could bring. Adopting the Mk41 as a NATO standard piece of kit might upset the French and possibly Italians, but if manufacturers co-ordinate their future projects to make them compatible with the Mk41 everybody wins.
Re: Naval Command to 2030
I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that Sea Ceptor, on the latest designs of the Type 26, will be launched from triple cells of Lockheed Martin's ExLS VLS which is, perhaps not coincidentally, also the launcher of choice for the Venator-110.
This is apparently the preferred option because it takes up less space than either dedicated single cell launchers for Sea Ceptor or an equivalent number of Mark 41 launchers.
I believe that elsewhere Gabriele has pointed out that TLAM production is coming to an end and if we wanted a ship launched version we'd have to order them very soon (we may in fact already be too late).
Alternatively there's the LRASM but this is a direct competitor to the Anglo-French FCASW. Now as the contract to develop the latter system was only signed two years ago I just can't see us agreeing to buy anything else. And anyway it shouldn't be a problem because on current plans the third Type 26 won't enter service until 2030 which is when FCASW is scheduled to enter service.
So in my view it's ExLS with Sea Ceptor for both the Type 26 and 31e and up to 24 Mark 41's for the Type 26 for FCASW, VL-ASROC or Sea Ceptor-ER but nothing as large or expensive for the Type 31e - just eight SSGW launchers.
This is apparently the preferred option because it takes up less space than either dedicated single cell launchers for Sea Ceptor or an equivalent number of Mark 41 launchers.
I believe that elsewhere Gabriele has pointed out that TLAM production is coming to an end and if we wanted a ship launched version we'd have to order them very soon (we may in fact already be too late).
Alternatively there's the LRASM but this is a direct competitor to the Anglo-French FCASW. Now as the contract to develop the latter system was only signed two years ago I just can't see us agreeing to buy anything else. And anyway it shouldn't be a problem because on current plans the third Type 26 won't enter service until 2030 which is when FCASW is scheduled to enter service.
So in my view it's ExLS with Sea Ceptor for both the Type 26 and 31e and up to 24 Mark 41's for the Type 26 for FCASW, VL-ASROC or Sea Ceptor-ER but nothing as large or expensive for the Type 31e - just eight SSGW launchers.
Re: Naval Command to 2030
Funding Naval Command Priorities to 2025
This assessment is based on the MoD’s defence equipment plan 2016 which can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -plan-2016
The MoD report provides plenty of detail that can be used to assess the state of the procurement budget by service.
For each budget heading this analysis examines the ‘Equipment Procurement (Uncommitted)’ figure. The budget headings below are those used on pages 18-31.
Submarines - £19.8 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement
This total is made up of the Trident Successor Programme and the maintenance of the nuclear deterrent. As this is the MoD’s largest procurement project it provides the greatest risk to the overall budget and will require the closest management. In the SDSR 2015 the total procurement cost of the Trident Successor Programme was increased from £25 billion to £31 billion but spread over a longer period. In addition a dedicated contingency reserve of £10 billion was established.
Ships - £6.6 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement
Included in this are:
• £3.08 billion on Type 26 Global Combat Ships (one on sea trials and three under construction by 2025)
• £1 billion on Type 31e frigates (three in service and two under construction by 2025)
• £500 million for an adapted LHD based on the Mistral
• £500 million for three Future Fleet Solid Support (FFSS) ships
• £150 million on installing 42 quad packed Sea Ceptor launchers on QE carriers and larger amphibious ships plus 72 strike length VLS launchers on Type 45 destroyers and
• £120 million on design and testing of the autonomous Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MMCM) programme.
That leaves £1.25 billion for the introduction into service of MMCM, the design and steel cutting for at least one MHPC plus the design of the replacements for the amphibious LPD and LSD to enter service from 2033 and the Type 45 destroyers from 2036.
This assessment is based on the MoD’s defence equipment plan 2016 which can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -plan-2016
The MoD report provides plenty of detail that can be used to assess the state of the procurement budget by service.
For each budget heading this analysis examines the ‘Equipment Procurement (Uncommitted)’ figure. The budget headings below are those used on pages 18-31.
Submarines - £19.8 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement
This total is made up of the Trident Successor Programme and the maintenance of the nuclear deterrent. As this is the MoD’s largest procurement project it provides the greatest risk to the overall budget and will require the closest management. In the SDSR 2015 the total procurement cost of the Trident Successor Programme was increased from £25 billion to £31 billion but spread over a longer period. In addition a dedicated contingency reserve of £10 billion was established.
Ships - £6.6 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement
Included in this are:
• £3.08 billion on Type 26 Global Combat Ships (one on sea trials and three under construction by 2025)
• £1 billion on Type 31e frigates (three in service and two under construction by 2025)
• £500 million for an adapted LHD based on the Mistral
• £500 million for three Future Fleet Solid Support (FFSS) ships
• £150 million on installing 42 quad packed Sea Ceptor launchers on QE carriers and larger amphibious ships plus 72 strike length VLS launchers on Type 45 destroyers and
• £120 million on design and testing of the autonomous Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MMCM) programme.
That leaves £1.25 billion for the introduction into service of MMCM, the design and steel cutting for at least one MHPC plus the design of the replacements for the amphibious LPD and LSD to enter service from 2033 and the Type 45 destroyers from 2036.
Re: Naval Command to 2030
AndyC wrote: £500 million for an adapted LHD based on the Mistral
Could you point out what part of the document or source lists these two areas. Have not saw any articles on it either.AndyC wrote: £150 million on installing 42 quad packed Sea Ceptor launchers on QE carriers and larger amphibious ships plus 72 strike length VLS launchers on Type 45 destroyers
Re: Naval Command to 2030
Submarines Budget Priorities to 2026
This assessment is based on the MoD’s defence equipment plan 2017 which can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -plan-2017 It examines the ‘Equipment Procurement (Uncommitted)’ figure for Submarines at March 31st 2017 and can be found on pages 20-21.
Submarines - £19 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement
This total is made up of £17.5 billion for the Trident Successor Programme and £1.5 billion for the construction of the seventh Astute SSN. As this is the MoD’s largest procurement project it provides the greatest risk to the overall budget and will require the closest management. In the SDSR 2015 the total procurement cost of the Trident Successor Programme was increased from £25 billion to £31 billion but spread over a longer period. In addition, there is a Nuclear Contingency fund of £800 million and a dedicated contingency reserve of £10 billion held by the Treasury.
The Submarines budget is fully committed.
This assessment is based on the MoD’s defence equipment plan 2017 which can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -plan-2017 It examines the ‘Equipment Procurement (Uncommitted)’ figure for Submarines at March 31st 2017 and can be found on pages 20-21.
Submarines - £19 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement
This total is made up of £17.5 billion for the Trident Successor Programme and £1.5 billion for the construction of the seventh Astute SSN. As this is the MoD’s largest procurement project it provides the greatest risk to the overall budget and will require the closest management. In the SDSR 2015 the total procurement cost of the Trident Successor Programme was increased from £25 billion to £31 billion but spread over a longer period. In addition, there is a Nuclear Contingency fund of £800 million and a dedicated contingency reserve of £10 billion held by the Treasury.
The Submarines budget is fully committed.
Re: Naval Command to 2030
Ships Budget Priorities to 2026
This assessment is based on the MoD’s defence equipment plan 2017 which can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -plan-2017 It examines the ‘Equipment Procurement (Uncommitted)’ figure for Ships at March 31st 2017 and can be found on pages 17-19.
Ships - £6.9 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement
Included in this are:
• £3.1 billion on Type 26 Global Combat Ships (first in service, second five-sixths built, third half built, and fourth one-sixth built) – unit cost £1.2 billion
• £1 billion on Type 31e frigates (three in service and two under construction) – unit cost £250 million
• £1 billion for three Future Fleet Solid Support (FFSS) ships
• £240 million on a new Auxiliary Oiler
• £120 million on design and steel cutting of the first two MHPC Vessels – unit cost £120 million
• £40 million to replace the Gibraltar Squadron
• £640 million for an adapted LHD based on the Mistral – unit cost €720 million; £/€ rate 1.13 and
• £160 million to install twelve sets of Mk 41 VLS cells on Type 45 destroyers - unit cost U$2.2 million based on February 2018 sale to Finland; £/U$1.30.
That leaves £600 million for the introduction into service of the autonomous Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MMCM) programme, the design of the replacements for the amphibious LPD and LSD to enter service from 2033 and the Type 45 destroyers from 2036.
The Ships budget is fully committed.
This assessment is based on the MoD’s defence equipment plan 2017 which can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -plan-2017 It examines the ‘Equipment Procurement (Uncommitted)’ figure for Ships at March 31st 2017 and can be found on pages 17-19.
Ships - £6.9 billion in Uncommitted Equipment Procurement
Included in this are:
• £3.1 billion on Type 26 Global Combat Ships (first in service, second five-sixths built, third half built, and fourth one-sixth built) – unit cost £1.2 billion
• £1 billion on Type 31e frigates (three in service and two under construction) – unit cost £250 million
• £1 billion for three Future Fleet Solid Support (FFSS) ships
• £240 million on a new Auxiliary Oiler
• £120 million on design and steel cutting of the first two MHPC Vessels – unit cost £120 million
• £40 million to replace the Gibraltar Squadron
• £640 million for an adapted LHD based on the Mistral – unit cost €720 million; £/€ rate 1.13 and
• £160 million to install twelve sets of Mk 41 VLS cells on Type 45 destroyers - unit cost U$2.2 million based on February 2018 sale to Finland; £/U$1.30.
That leaves £600 million for the introduction into service of the autonomous Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MMCM) programme, the design of the replacements for the amphibious LPD and LSD to enter service from 2033 and the Type 45 destroyers from 2036.
The Ships budget is fully committed.
Re: Naval Command to 2030
More good news ahead of the Modernising Defence Programme:
Albion and Bulwark are safe https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/albion- ... from-cuts/
all eight Type 26 are to be based at Plymouth https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-45782757
and the Type 31e programme has been re-booted https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/type-3 ... restarted/
Almost makes you wonder what's left to announce in the MDP!
Albion and Bulwark are safe https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/albion- ... from-cuts/
all eight Type 26 are to be based at Plymouth https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-45782757
and the Type 31e programme has been re-booted https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/type-3 ... restarted/
Almost makes you wonder what's left to announce in the MDP!
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Naval Command to 2030
Comparing the last three EPs, there has been a clear acceleration of surface ships spend, peaking in the 2020 to -23 period;and, conversely the submarine spend comes on stream slower than previously envisaged.
- we are starting to see the results from the Commands having own authority also for inter-year prioritisation (not just in year, which has given rise to some very bad trade-offs)
- we are starting to see the results from the Commands having own authority also for inter-year prioritisation (not just in year, which has given rise to some very bad trade-offs)
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)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4107
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Naval Command to 2030
The cuts to pay for it all?AndyC wrote:Almost makes you wonder what's left to announce in the MDP!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5604
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Naval Command to 2030
"Cammell Laird: Unite union workers vote to strike over job fears" by BBC
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-46156160
Looks like Camell Laird is planning to cut 291 workers. Considering the company get an order worth ~1B GBP for RFA maintenance, as well as T45 re-engine work, I guess the "291 highly skilled workers and support staff" is related to steel cutting and welding (although guess). Babcock Appledore closure included, I think UK ship yards are severly thinking about the ship-building future.
Sorry to say, it is reasonable decision for Babcock and CL, considering the gray future of T31e regarding the MDP and SDSR2020, and MARS SSS international bid policy. HMG may offer "60M support" proposed for Appledore back again to CL. But, it is also the same for H&W and others.
So, UK must first decide on SSS (I think decision is made and simply many counter-arguments are coming), and on T31e, and select the ship yards to save, and contract a TOBA. If HMG do not want to do these approaches, ship builders cannot tolerate the risk.
"Competition" means "the shipyard lost the bid will bankrupt".
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-46156160
Looks like Camell Laird is planning to cut 291 workers. Considering the company get an order worth ~1B GBP for RFA maintenance, as well as T45 re-engine work, I guess the "291 highly skilled workers and support staff" is related to steel cutting and welding (although guess). Babcock Appledore closure included, I think UK ship yards are severly thinking about the ship-building future.
Sorry to say, it is reasonable decision for Babcock and CL, considering the gray future of T31e regarding the MDP and SDSR2020, and MARS SSS international bid policy. HMG may offer "60M support" proposed for Appledore back again to CL. But, it is also the same for H&W and others.
So, UK must first decide on SSS (I think decision is made and simply many counter-arguments are coming), and on T31e, and select the ship yards to save, and contract a TOBA. If HMG do not want to do these approaches, ship builders cannot tolerate the risk.
"Competition" means "the shipyard lost the bid will bankrupt".
Re: Naval Command to 2030
MoD contracts can only support a finite number of yards, and even with on shore warship tenders, the MoD wants and needs the lowest price. In reality it has got burnt by BAe and the T-26 and the incurred cost increases and cannot afford the same to happen again. There is going to be a consolidation, with possibly only one "English" yard surviving into the future. Whether a workforce can also be consolidated at these locations through support both for the workers to move and the surviving company to retain the workforce in lean times is where the Government is going to have to put money where its mouth is.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4107
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Naval Command to 2030
Lots of politics going on Donald. Try and look through it. Much of this is designed to pressurise HMG into going one way or the other. One thing is for sure, not everyone will be happy in the end. Perhaps everyone will be unhappy.donald_of_tokyo wrote:it is reasonable decision for Babcock and CL, considering the gray future of T31e regarding the MDP and SDSR2020, and MARS SSS international bid policy. HMG may offer "60M support" proposed for Appledore back again to CL. But, it is also the same for H&W and others.
I agree. Select 4 yards including Barrow and Govan/Scotstoun and reliability support them with a continuous stream of regular orders. Proper, prior, planning, prevents.......donald_of_tokyo wrote:select the ship yards to save, and contract a TOBA
I'm not sure the TOBA was all bad. The problems started when the order book ran dry and we ended up building OPV's for the price of Corvettes.Lord Jim wrote:In reality it has got burnt by BAe and the T-26 and the incurred cost increases and cannot afford the same to happen again.
The alternative is to renationalise the yards and swallow the costs but I don't think that will be cheaper in the end.
Shipyards or shipbuilding? Two different things. If Appledore closes and Babcock win the T31 competition, naval shipbuilding will cease in England unless Cammell Laird and A&P etc bid for blocks. Potentially Ferguson on the Clyde and H&W in Belfast could build T31 blocks for Babcock which would be assembled at Rosyth. Strategically for the UK it would be madness.Lord Jim wrote:There is going to be a consolidation, with possibly only one "English" yard surviving into the future.
The idea that assembling all of RN's and RFA's vessels either in Scotland or South Korea is an ideal scenario is ludicrous and will be overturned as soon as Labour get the keys to No10. What the RN/RFA needs is fully supported, well managed and reliably financed naval shipbuilding in the UK with full cross party agreement.
Absolutely and this why the mega yard template is so risky. If the work dries up, even temporarily, thousands of jobs are put at risk and potentially HMG would have to step in with a bail out.Lord Jim wrote:...the surviving company to retain the workforce in lean times is where the Government is going to have to put money where its mouth is.
Big yards, big overheads, big risks, potentially big bailouts.
Much better to have 4 specialist yards with a reliable drumbeat of fully funded orders. Even if there is a problem at one yard caused by industrial action or something else the rest can carry on regardless. Although potentially less efficient when things are going well, distributing the work across the UK also has it's advantages too.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Naval Command to 2030
+Poiuytrewq wrote:Select 4 yards including Barrow and Govan/Scotstoun
Err, just the fitting out yard (as the yard for subs can only be described as "nationalised", or rather "national" as of today).Poiuytrewq wrote: The alternative is to renationalise the yards
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: Naval Command to 2030
Unfortunately both the SSS and T-31e will be decided before the Government and the countries finances recovers from BREXIT, so it will be for the Ship building industry to rationalise on their own. This could be a brutal affair with the Winners of said contracts surviving in one form or other and the loser simply going under. There will simply not be the Governmental funding to prop up yards until further work arrives and of course if the SSS go overseas it will be worse, though there has been at least one UK bid for this contract. In a nut shell things are going to get worse, the question is by what degree.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Naval Command to 2030
Sure thing as it is anybody's guess when and if the volume of work from offshore will come back. At the end of July https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... fa-sss.htm gave these datesLord Jim wrote: Ship building industry to rationalise on their own[. This] could be a brutal affair
" The formal issue of documentation inviting bids for the design and build contract will be given in December 2018 with a view to awarding the contract in 2020."
- I wonder if they still hold (for the first two ships)?
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: Naval Command to 2030
Initial bids are in I believe with the "Down select", to three or four taking place at the end of this year, and these will be asked to submit detailed proposals and discussions with the MoD and so on.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Naval Command to 2030
' Great, thanksLord Jim wrote:"Down select", to three or four taking place at the end of this year
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)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4107
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Naval Command to 2030
Letter in today's Sunday Telegraph.
SIR – Whatever form Brexit may take, no one expects the United Kingdom’s core values to change in the coming decades. Neither will its security interests.
While misunderstandings about France’s role in the Brexit negotiations sometimes affect the way my country is perceived in the UK, we will always remain a strong and reliable military partner, and certainly the UK’s closest in Europe in terms of ethos, scale and ambition.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of threats to either France or the UK would equally be of primary concern to the other. As an example of this, after the chemical attack in Salisbury, France was a leading advocate within the EU of condemning Russia.
As two long-standing maritime powers, the UK and France share strong interests in one of our century’s primary strategic arenas. Our world’s oceans are today subject to unprecedented competition, rivalry and predation. More worryingly, the consensus-based, internationally recognised maritime law is at risk, and is increasingly ignored by authoritarian regimes who are showing a growing appetite for expanding their territories, naval capabilities and maritime reach.
In this context, France, with its long-lasting naval presence in the Western Pacific Ocean, welcomes the Royal Navy’s recent and significant reinvestment in that region, which is not only vital but symbolic for international security and trade.
Interestingly, this change is happening at a time when the UK, with HMS Queen Elizabeth, is re-joining the exclusive club of aircraft-carrier nations. With this, our countries’ strong co-operation can expand further and a record number of “exchange officers” will serve in each other’s combat units.
We cannot allow Brexit and its side effects to weaken the natural strategic convergence between Europe’s two main naval powers. This is of paramount importance at a time when the global maritime arena is witnessing growing tensions.
Vice-Admiral Patrick Chevallereau (retd)
Former Defence Attaché at the French Embassy in London
RUSI Senior Associate Fellow
While misunderstandings about France’s role in the Brexit negotiations sometimes affect the way my country is perceived in the UK, we will always remain a strong and reliable military partner, and certainly the UK’s closest in Europe in terms of ethos, scale and ambition.
There is no doubt that the vast majority of threats to either France or the UK would equally be of primary concern to the other. As an example of this, after the chemical attack in Salisbury, France was a leading advocate within the EU of condemning Russia.
As two long-standing maritime powers, the UK and France share strong interests in one of our century’s primary strategic arenas. Our world’s oceans are today subject to unprecedented competition, rivalry and predation. More worryingly, the consensus-based, internationally recognised maritime law is at risk, and is increasingly ignored by authoritarian regimes who are showing a growing appetite for expanding their territories, naval capabilities and maritime reach.
In this context, France, with its long-lasting naval presence in the Western Pacific Ocean, welcomes the Royal Navy’s recent and significant reinvestment in that region, which is not only vital but symbolic for international security and trade.
Interestingly, this change is happening at a time when the UK, with HMS Queen Elizabeth, is re-joining the exclusive club of aircraft-carrier nations. With this, our countries’ strong co-operation can expand further and a record number of “exchange officers” will serve in each other’s combat units.
We cannot allow Brexit and its side effects to weaken the natural strategic convergence between Europe’s two main naval powers. This is of paramount importance at a time when the global maritime arena is witnessing growing tensions.
Vice-Admiral Patrick Chevallereau (retd)
Former Defence Attaché at the French Embassy in London
RUSI Senior Associate Fellow
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Naval Command to 2030
A point. Unit prices, long turnaround times of capital ships when they need deep maintenance/ mid-life refit/ re-coringPoiuytrewq wrote:We cannot allow Brexit and its side effects to weaken the natural strategic convergence between Europe’s two main naval powers.
... all of that calls for very close coordination.
The fact that the joint intervention force made it to being declared "operational" and that no one now seems to mention it is of lesser importance; and can be put "back together" very quickly.
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: Naval Command to 2030
Defence Nuclear Organisation Budget Priorities to 2028
This analysis is based on the MoD’s defence equipment plan 2018 which can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -plan-2018 It examines both the Committed and Uncommitted Equipment Procurement (EPP) figure for the Defence Nuclear Organisation Top Level Budget (TLB) at March 31st 2018 and can be found on pages 30-31.
Defence Nuclear Organisation - £16.3 billion in Total Equipment Procurement.
This total is made up of £14.8 billion for the Trident Successor Programme and £1.5 billion for the construction of the seventh Astute SSN. In SDSR 2015 the total procurement cost of the Trident Successor Programme was increased from £25 billion to £31 billion but spread over a longer period. In addition, there is an MoD controlled Nuclear Contingency fund of £1.1 billion and a dedicated contingency reserve of £10 billion held by the Treasury. The latter was drawn down by £600 million in 2018/19 and a further amount of £500 million has been allocated for 2019/20.
The Defence Nuclear Organisation TLB has already had to draw down £1.1 billion from the Treasury reserve and is struggling to stay in-budget.
This analysis is based on the MoD’s defence equipment plan 2018 which can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -plan-2018 It examines both the Committed and Uncommitted Equipment Procurement (EPP) figure for the Defence Nuclear Organisation Top Level Budget (TLB) at March 31st 2018 and can be found on pages 30-31.
Defence Nuclear Organisation - £16.3 billion in Total Equipment Procurement.
This total is made up of £14.8 billion for the Trident Successor Programme and £1.5 billion for the construction of the seventh Astute SSN. In SDSR 2015 the total procurement cost of the Trident Successor Programme was increased from £25 billion to £31 billion but spread over a longer period. In addition, there is an MoD controlled Nuclear Contingency fund of £1.1 billion and a dedicated contingency reserve of £10 billion held by the Treasury. The latter was drawn down by £600 million in 2018/19 and a further amount of £500 million has been allocated for 2019/20.
The Defence Nuclear Organisation TLB has already had to draw down £1.1 billion from the Treasury reserve and is struggling to stay in-budget.
Re: Naval Command to 2030
This is well worth a read https://rusi.org/commentary/uk-defence-and-2018-budget
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Naval Command to 2030
THx, an excerpt
"before work begins on the new cross-Whitehall defence and security review that will run alongside the 2019 Spending Review. The MoD has made clear that it intends to conclude the MDP by the end of 2018. It has not yet decided whether this conclusion will take the form of a full publication or (more likely) a Written Ministerial Statement. What is clear is that, because of the additional announcements in the budget, the MoD will no longer have to make the immediate reductions in capability – cutting Regular Army personnel numbers, scrapping amphibious ships and so on – that were being heavily trailed during the earlier phases of the review in late 2017."
"before work begins on the new cross-Whitehall defence and security review that will run alongside the 2019 Spending Review. The MoD has made clear that it intends to conclude the MDP by the end of 2018. It has not yet decided whether this conclusion will take the form of a full publication or (more likely) a Written Ministerial Statement. What is clear is that, because of the additional announcements in the budget, the MoD will no longer have to make the immediate reductions in capability – cutting Regular Army personnel numbers, scrapping amphibious ships and so on – that were being heavily trailed during the earlier phases of the review in late 2017."
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: Naval Command to 2030
As usual the hard decision have been pushed further to the right. Interesting that the 9019 review is still being referred to as a defence AND security review. I though after the decision to conduct he MDP, security was being removed form the equation. This is worrying going forward as is security is still included it gives the Government room to fudge things considerably. What this means for the Navy is anyone's guess but my gut feeling is that they are still going to have to fight tooth and nail just to keep what they have.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Naval Command to 2030
Looking at defence in 7000 years time is always going to be a bit "tounge in cheek" anyway