UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
BVRAAM,
Did the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO member states now abutting Russia and almost every former Warsaw Pact member now being a member of NATO pass you by completely?
Cos that's why the 250 target figure was dropped.
Did the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO member states now abutting Russia and almost every former Warsaw Pact member now being a member of NATO pass you by completely?
Cos that's why the 250 target figure was dropped.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BVRAAM,
Did the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO member states now abutting Russia and almost every former Warsaw Pact member now being a member of NATO pass you by completely?
Cos that's why the 250 target figure was dropped.
Did the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO member states now abutting Russia and almost every former Warsaw Pact member now being a member of NATO pass you by completely?
Cos that's why the 250 target figure was dropped.
The Typhoon Force is now doing (almost) everything all the others combined, did, with a fraction of the available assets and people. That's a lot of work...
Russia and Iran now pose a threat. Maybe it's time for the country to sit down and start discussing defence again?
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's only a matter of time before Iran attacks a neighbouring country again.
If Trump wins a second term, the gloves will be off - he won't need to keep the election promise of "no more wars," any more, because he'll be gone in January 2025, as per the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, regardless.
If they do attack, Trump will retaliate with some form of military action. Then Russia will get involved, like they did in Syria, and it could be a mess. Like always, the UK will be dragged in and we haven't invested enough in defence to meet that demand.
Barely scraping 2% of GDP is frankly a joke, when we invest so much more in to bloated and poorly managed departments elsewhere. We should be investing at least 3!
If Trump wins a second term, the gloves will be off - he won't need to keep the election promise of "no more wars," any more, because he'll be gone in January 2025, as per the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, regardless.
If they do attack, Trump will retaliate with some form of military action. Then Russia will get involved, like they did in Syria, and it could be a mess. Like always, the UK will be dragged in and we haven't invested enough in defence to meet that demand.
Barely scraping 2% of GDP is frankly a joke, when we invest so much more in to bloated and poorly managed departments elsewhere. We should be investing at least 3!
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of fact, Trump has already hinted he will retaliate if they so much as dare strike another allied country again.
His restraint really is a sign of strength - a level of strength his predecessor didn't have. Iran should take that as a warning, and not as a cop out. Donald Trump doesn't make idle threats. Iran will call his bluff at their peril.
His restraint really is a sign of strength - a level of strength his predecessor didn't have. Iran should take that as a warning, and not as a cop out. Donald Trump doesn't make idle threats. Iran will call his bluff at their peril.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don’t forget we ‘paid to be different’ on the F-35B not the A. If you want As...and it’s understandable that you do...you might want to factor in all those bespoke UK weapon integrations onto the cost. Plus whichever is cheaper...probe onto A or boom onto PFI airline-tanker thingy.
My bet would be on the next order being for more Bs...but I think the through life buy will be near as damn it 50:50.
My bet would be on the next order being for more Bs...but I think the through life buy will be near as damn it 50:50.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't speak for all, but OOA has never bothered me per se, I take the wages, I gotta earn them.
However.....There is a middle ground. When most units have a shortfall of 5-50% in the required manning due to sick, lame, lazy and empty JPANs, it gets tedious VERY quickly.
The 20% that do 80% of the work has never been more true than the last few years. I have spent 3.5 yrs of the last 6 yrs out with my own marital bed due to exercises, courses, deployments, standby, exercises etc... And just to be clear, I dont mean weekends aren't counted, I mean 1,277 days I was not home. Others that I have worked alongside, have spent around 9 months away from home in the same time period.
Personally I have been lied to and manipulated to deploy as "you are the only person qualified in the RAF". This really sticks in the throat and frustrates those who are willing to dig out blind and work hard. The role I was doing ended up with me being replaced by someone fresh out of Ph 2 training who did not have 50% of the required quals....
I had one of my Sqn mates coerced into deploying when his wife had diagnosed post-natal depression. She was 4 months post birth, had no family to help and had another child to look after whilst dealing with physical birth trauma and severe depression which led to a severe lack of sleep. My boss told him that there was no replacement and he had to go....Unsurprisingly he was Comp B'd less than a month into his deployment when his wife fell asleep at a set of traffic lights before the police were called and then had a breakdown which required a neighbour had to intervene and call the Chief Clerk! This was his 3rd deployment in 2.5 yrs.
Be mindful that general statements will by definition not include all. They will very likely deeply anger those, who are the opposite, of what your statements profess to demonstrate.
Last edited by heights good; 2nd Dec 2019 at 21:17.
Given I've over 2000 days LSA, I've deployed for 227 days on my last deployment, and I've led people around the world, I'd say I've earned the right to judge those who whinge about "not joining up to do OOADs".
There are a minority who sustain the burden - at every rank - and there are others who shine their arses.
Do we get it right - not always, but we should join with the expectation of repeated deployments. If you have a need not to go (and post-natal mental health support would be a good enough reason) then the system should support you as well.
There are a minority who sustain the burden - at every rank - and there are others who shine their arses.
Do we get it right - not always, but we should join with the expectation of repeated deployments. If you have a need not to go (and post-natal mental health support would be a good enough reason) then the system should support you as well.
In my opinion the most important thing from an Operational capability standpoint is to ensure future interoperability with the US. We need to move away from this huge European/NATO multi-national project idea.
Scrap the idea of Tempest and look to enter joint US/UK programs with licenses to build elements in the UK, even if it means buying off the shelf US designs.
You need to be able to seamlessley integrate into a Network enabled war now days to have a place at the table or be involved in night one of the war. This should be the highest priority, even if it means forfeiting some industrial kudos.
Done correctly, UK buy in to majority US programs is in my opinion the future of combat air. Smart contracting could see design or production elements shared to help UK industry, including weapons.
Mr Vice.
Scrap the idea of Tempest and look to enter joint US/UK programs with licenses to build elements in the UK, even if it means buying off the shelf US designs.
You need to be able to seamlessley integrate into a Network enabled war now days to have a place at the table or be involved in night one of the war. This should be the highest priority, even if it means forfeiting some industrial kudos.
Done correctly, UK buy in to majority US programs is in my opinion the future of combat air. Smart contracting could see design or production elements shared to help UK industry, including weapons.
Mr Vice.
Thread Starter
Trouble is Vice is that you are then giving up any chance of taking any independent decisions. The UK is supposed to be leaving the EU because it doesn't want to be dictated to and organised by foreigners but your scheme would see the US having total control over UK military equipment etc.
Secondly can you afford it? The US spends a lot more on kit (item by item) than the UK does.......................
Secondly can you afford it? The US spends a lot more on kit (item by item) than the UK does.......................
Thread Starter
Back on thread:-
In a perfect world the politicians would lay out what they want the military to do - the military would then estimate independently what forces are needed and then someone (also independent ) like the Institute for Fiscal Studies would crunch the costs and tell Govt this is the bill ....... you'd go round the hoops a few times to get to an answer
I'm sure people e.g. Sir Humphrey Appleby) will claim that this is what is done now in Whitehall - but I think it should all be done in public - then we can see who is grandstanding
In a perfect world the politicians would lay out what they want the military to do - the military would then estimate independently what forces are needed and then someone (also independent ) like the Institute for Fiscal Studies would crunch the costs and tell Govt this is the bill ....... you'd go round the hoops a few times to get to an answer
I'm sure people e.g. Sir Humphrey Appleby) will claim that this is what is done now in Whitehall - but I think it should all be done in public - then we can see who is grandstanding
Trouble is Vice is that you are then giving up any chance of taking any independent decisions. The UK is supposed to be leaving the EU because it doesn't want to be dictated to and organised by foreigners but your scheme would see the US having total control over UK military equipment etc.
Secondly can you afford it? The US spends a lot more on kit (item by item) than the UK does.......................
Secondly can you afford it? The US spends a lot more on kit (item by item) than the UK does.......................
1) The UK is leaving the EU yet is getting involved in Tempest with Italy and Sweden. Both nations who have no interest in the sort of expeditionary warfare we have been carrying out for decades. How will you develop and expand the platform to suit your needs when the partner nations share no interest in spending money to increase the capability? This is often seen in the Eurofighter Program.
2) I would be interested to see your figures on how the US spend a lot more 'item by item' than the UK does. I am pretty sure that given scales of economy the Australian procurement of US Hornets works out cheaper than the Typhoon purchase for the UK.
The US would not have total control over your kit and equipment and where you use it, that is nonsense. What it would give you is access to spares and combined development. As I mentioned before, UK industry could benefit from integrating great UK weapons on to US platforms and offering the US the benefit of our weapons if they did decide to purchase.
Finally, on what planet do you think we would ever get involved in an independent war. Look at the state of our current government and national appetite for overseas Operations. Get real, we are no longer a global super power. Lets move forward and integrate with the US, they have been involved in every single conflict we have been in for the past 30 years and we could not have done without them, the sooner we get over the notion of the UK as an independent Global Military Power the better.
Lets accept where we are, channel our funding to buy the best capability we can in order to seamlessly integrate with our preferred partner for the greatest combined effect.
Mr Vice.
Thread Starter
"the sort of expeditionary warfare we have been carrying out for decades"
i'm not sure that has a great deal of public support in the UK any longer............ nor is there a great deal of enthusiasm for being US mercenaries - it hasn't worked out very well since 2000
i'm not sure that has a great deal of public support in the UK any longer............ nor is there a great deal of enthusiasm for being US mercenaries - it hasn't worked out very well since 2000
The PoW and QE are future artificial reefs, nothing more.
Let’s put them near... China for example. A years ago some clever Navy spokesman said about the acoustic range of QE... ‘ doesn’t matter as it’s not an ASW asset’. That’s maybe because it’s the target, so... maybe it’s acoustic range does matter?
Lions led by donkeys! We don’t have enough P8s, helicopter can’t do wide area surveillance and the RAF answer is to replace experience willingly for cheaper people. It will end in tears. When 20t of water floods in, it’s a minor problem?!
I recall the article just 2 weeks ago when a helpful MOD spokesman told the papers the F35 had a 20:1 advantage. So 20 Chinese stealth, or Russian for that matter, and we offer SEAD or DEAD?
At the end of the day, there’s no getting real, there’s flag waving and euphoria, for whatever reason.
Time for the SDSR? YES. Time to outsource to Deloitte? YES, the MOD cannot be trusted, it’s too much jobs for the boys, and little comprehension of the stakes the pilots face.
Our next war may not be against a country of tribes, but one against overwhelmingly stiff odds and a less belligerent canopy.
Let’s put them near... China for example. A years ago some clever Navy spokesman said about the acoustic range of QE... ‘ doesn’t matter as it’s not an ASW asset’. That’s maybe because it’s the target, so... maybe it’s acoustic range does matter?
Lions led by donkeys! We don’t have enough P8s, helicopter can’t do wide area surveillance and the RAF answer is to replace experience willingly for cheaper people. It will end in tears. When 20t of water floods in, it’s a minor problem?!
I recall the article just 2 weeks ago when a helpful MOD spokesman told the papers the F35 had a 20:1 advantage. So 20 Chinese stealth, or Russian for that matter, and we offer SEAD or DEAD?
At the end of the day, there’s no getting real, there’s flag waving and euphoria, for whatever reason.
Time for the SDSR? YES. Time to outsource to Deloitte? YES, the MOD cannot be trusted, it’s too much jobs for the boys, and little comprehension of the stakes the pilots face.
Our next war may not be against a country of tribes, but one against overwhelmingly stiff odds and a less belligerent canopy.
The PoW and QE are future artificial reefs, nothing more.
Let’s put them near... China for example. A years ago some clever Navy spokesman said about the acoustic range of QE... ‘ doesn’t matter as it’s not an ASW asset’. That’s maybe because it’s the target, so... maybe it’s acoustic range does matter?
Lions led by donkeys! We don’t have enough P8s, helicopter can’t do wide area surveillance and the RAF answer is to replace experience willingly for cheaper people. It will end in tears. When 20t of water floods in, it’s a minor problem?!
I recall the article just 2 weeks ago when a helpful MOD spokesman told the papers the F35 had a 20:1 advantage. So 20 Chinese stealth, or Russian for that matter, and we offer SEAD or DEAD?
At the end of the day, there’s no getting real, there’s flag waving and euphoria, for whatever reason.
Time for the SDSR? YES. Time to outsource to Deloitte? YES, the MOD cannot be trusted, it’s too much jobs for the boys, and little comprehension of the stakes the pilots face.
Our next war may not be against a country of tribes, but one against overwhelmingly stiff odds and a less belligerent canopy.
Let’s put them near... China for example. A years ago some clever Navy spokesman said about the acoustic range of QE... ‘ doesn’t matter as it’s not an ASW asset’. That’s maybe because it’s the target, so... maybe it’s acoustic range does matter?
Lions led by donkeys! We don’t have enough P8s, helicopter can’t do wide area surveillance and the RAF answer is to replace experience willingly for cheaper people. It will end in tears. When 20t of water floods in, it’s a minor problem?!
I recall the article just 2 weeks ago when a helpful MOD spokesman told the papers the F35 had a 20:1 advantage. So 20 Chinese stealth, or Russian for that matter, and we offer SEAD or DEAD?
At the end of the day, there’s no getting real, there’s flag waving and euphoria, for whatever reason.
Time for the SDSR? YES. Time to outsource to Deloitte? YES, the MOD cannot be trusted, it’s too much jobs for the boys, and little comprehension of the stakes the pilots face.
Our next war may not be against a country of tribes, but one against overwhelmingly stiff odds and a less belligerent canopy.
...Oh, and just to point out, SDSR is not conducted by the MOD. MOD and the three Services are active bystanders.
Too late - the big consultancies are over SDSR like a tramp on chips. All are offering their 'visioneering' and 'imagineering' across the services and the other SDDR players. At £1200 per consultant per day...
...Oh, and just to point out, SDSR is not conducted by the MOD. MOD and the three Services are active bystanders.
...Oh, and just to point out, SDSR is not conducted by the MOD. MOD and the three Services are active bystanders.
Where is the ‘Focus on personnel’? Great in a pamphlet, but not over on Ops.
People first... anyone got any examples?
Ive recently left, so I’m not going to be quietened down by a boss that has no bullocks. I think an army of Deloitte etc would be worth paying, rather than have a load of pension calculators grinding the guys down with no tangibles to demonstrate to Ben Wallace.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/d...t-1133338.html
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PoW and QE are future artificial reefs, nothing more.
Let’s put them near... China for example. A years ago some clever Navy spokesman said about the acoustic range of QE... ‘ doesn’t matter as it’s not an ASW asset’. That’s maybe because it’s the target, so... maybe it’s acoustic range does matter?
Lions led by donkeys! We don’t have enough P8s, helicopter can’t do wide area surveillance and the RAF answer is to replace experience willingly for cheaper people. It will end in tears. When 20t of water floods in, it’s a minor problem?!
I recall the article just 2 weeks ago when a helpful MOD spokesman told the papers the F35 had a 20:1 advantage. So 20 Chinese stealth, or Russian for that matter, and we offer SEAD or DEAD?
At the end of the day, there’s no getting real, there’s flag waving and euphoria, for whatever reason.
Time for the SDSR? YES. Time to outsource to Deloitte? YES, the MOD cannot be trusted, it’s too much jobs for the boys, and little comprehension of the stakes the pilots face.
Our next war may not be against a country of tribes, but one against overwhelmingly stiff odds and a less belligerent canopy.
Let’s put them near... China for example. A years ago some clever Navy spokesman said about the acoustic range of QE... ‘ doesn’t matter as it’s not an ASW asset’. That’s maybe because it’s the target, so... maybe it’s acoustic range does matter?
Lions led by donkeys! We don’t have enough P8s, helicopter can’t do wide area surveillance and the RAF answer is to replace experience willingly for cheaper people. It will end in tears. When 20t of water floods in, it’s a minor problem?!
I recall the article just 2 weeks ago when a helpful MOD spokesman told the papers the F35 had a 20:1 advantage. So 20 Chinese stealth, or Russian for that matter, and we offer SEAD or DEAD?
At the end of the day, there’s no getting real, there’s flag waving and euphoria, for whatever reason.
Time for the SDSR? YES. Time to outsource to Deloitte? YES, the MOD cannot be trusted, it’s too much jobs for the boys, and little comprehension of the stakes the pilots face.
Our next war may not be against a country of tribes, but one against overwhelmingly stiff odds and a less belligerent canopy.
They lose 20 assets, we lose one. Who has been disrupted the most?
Respectfully, it looks like Diane Abbott has done your maths for you.
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to a couple of your points:
1) The UK is leaving the EU yet is getting involved in Tempest with Italy and Sweden. Both nations who have no interest in the sort of expeditionary warfare we have been carrying out for decades. How will you develop and expand the platform to suit your needs when the partner nations share no interest in spending money to increase the capability? This is often seen in the Eurofighter Program.
2) I would be interested to see your figures on how the US spend a lot more 'item by item' than the UK does. I am pretty sure that given scales of economy the Australian procurement of US Hornets works out cheaper than the Typhoon purchase for the UK.
The US would not have total control over your kit and equipment and where you use it, that is nonsense. What it would give you is access to spares and combined development. As I mentioned before, UK industry could benefit from integrating great UK weapons on to US platforms and offering the US the benefit of our weapons if they did decide to purchase.
Finally, on what planet do you think we would ever get involved in an independent war. Look at the state of our current government and national appetite for overseas Operations. Get real, we are no longer a global super power. Lets move forward and integrate with the US, they have been involved in every single conflict we have been in for the past 30 years and we could not have done without them, the sooner we get over the notion of the UK as an independent Global Military Power the better.
Lets accept where we are, channel our funding to buy the best capability we can in order to seamlessly integrate with our preferred partner for the greatest combined effect.
Mr Vice.
1) The UK is leaving the EU yet is getting involved in Tempest with Italy and Sweden. Both nations who have no interest in the sort of expeditionary warfare we have been carrying out for decades. How will you develop and expand the platform to suit your needs when the partner nations share no interest in spending money to increase the capability? This is often seen in the Eurofighter Program.
2) I would be interested to see your figures on how the US spend a lot more 'item by item' than the UK does. I am pretty sure that given scales of economy the Australian procurement of US Hornets works out cheaper than the Typhoon purchase for the UK.
The US would not have total control over your kit and equipment and where you use it, that is nonsense. What it would give you is access to spares and combined development. As I mentioned before, UK industry could benefit from integrating great UK weapons on to US platforms and offering the US the benefit of our weapons if they did decide to purchase.
Finally, on what planet do you think we would ever get involved in an independent war. Look at the state of our current government and national appetite for overseas Operations. Get real, we are no longer a global super power. Lets move forward and integrate with the US, they have been involved in every single conflict we have been in for the past 30 years and we could not have done without them, the sooner we get over the notion of the UK as an independent Global Military Power the better.
Lets accept where we are, channel our funding to buy the best capability we can in order to seamlessly integrate with our preferred partner for the greatest combined effect.
Mr Vice.
The U.S. is the only country I fully trust. Integration means we can have more for less, as well. Win, win.