UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
Russia currently is operating around 3 "Borey" SSBN + 1 Typhoon + 7 Deltas - the Deltas are between 30 & 40 years old.
They have 10 Akulas SSN's which are approx 30 years old plus 1 Yasen which is about 6 years old
Also some SSK's and , old Oscars etc
these are split across 3 oceans
It's still a meaningful force but it's about the same as the UK plus France put together - and they are in one ocean.
They have 10 Akulas SSN's which are approx 30 years old plus 1 Yasen which is about 6 years old
Also some SSK's and , old Oscars etc
these are split across 3 oceans
It's still a meaningful force but it's about the same as the UK plus France put together - and they are in one ocean.
You should delve into it, as clearly you haven’t bothered.
What about Belgorod?
What are they doing with the other Typhoons, what about Poseidon?
Either you didn’t go over the site at all, you aren’t interested or are trolling.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How far out of port do our carriers get before they are sunk? Rather than talking nonsense you should maybe research the Russian navy, and how it has upgraded its 30 year old ships and submarines.
H I Sutton - Covert Shores
They are more than just a credible threat, and they are there...
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...atlantic-92336
What if China were to divert US assets from EUrope to the Pacific, do we continue to ‘high 5’ or do we start saving money by teaching Russian as a second language?
Its a a good job that we have a healthy ratio in the skies, because at sea maybe that is not the case; have a good research of the first link using google as well, before you sit too comfortably.
And the bit about US attention diverted? You think there’s a match against Russia?
ofcourse, this is just a theoretical exercise, they would never coordinate a multi theatre split and NATO is strong enough. All them spanking German subs that are good to go.. and all that.
ofcourse, this is just a theoretical exercise, they would never coordinate a multi theatre split and NATO is strong enough. All them spanking German subs that are good to go.. and all that.
Last edited by Countdown begins; 5th Dec 2019 at 14:42.
Is it sensible to have a 'strategic defense review' when the political framework is totally in flux? It is difficult to believe that anyone can develop an effective strategy when the goals are unspecified.
Thread Starter
"Is it sensible to have a 'strategic defense review'
Good question . One poster above suggested they were becoming institutionalised on a 5 year cycle which could be worrying. These days replacement kit seems to run on a 10-20 year cycle of identify- design- build- service for anything substantial - in that time you could 3-4 reviews any of which may change the framework/strategy.
Perhaps the Civil Service like the routine - that way you can always have a core of people working on the next one whether it is needed or not.
Good question . One poster above suggested they were becoming institutionalised on a 5 year cycle which could be worrying. These days replacement kit seems to run on a 10-20 year cycle of identify- design- build- service for anything substantial - in that time you could 3-4 reviews any of which may change the framework/strategy.
Perhaps the Civil Service like the routine - that way you can always have a core of people working on the next one whether it is needed or not.
"Is it sensible to have a 'strategic defense review'
Good question . One poster above suggested they were becoming institutionalised on a 5 year cycle which could be worrying. These days replacement kit seems to run on a 10-20 year cycle of identify- design- build- service for anything substantial - in that time you could 3-4 reviews any of which may change the framework/strategy.
Perhaps the Civil Service like the routine - that way you can always have a core of people working on the next one whether it is needed or not.
Good question . One poster above suggested they were becoming institutionalised on a 5 year cycle which could be worrying. These days replacement kit seems to run on a 10-20 year cycle of identify- design- build- service for anything substantial - in that time you could 3-4 reviews any of which may change the framework/strategy.
Perhaps the Civil Service like the routine - that way you can always have a core of people working on the next one whether it is needed or not.
Equipment plan reviews are an opportunity to ask the difficult questions like “is programme ‘x’ still going to deliver what we need in ‘y’ years’ time?”. Again these questions are asked more frequently during spending reviews, but the SDSR is the chance to take stock across the whole of Defence. As for SDSRs interfering with programme lifecycles, my simple response is “sunk cost fallacy”. If it’s no longer expected to be relevant or offer good value for future expenditure, bin it immediately irrespective of prior investment. (I recognise that politics often militates against this but civil servants are duty-bound to offer ministers the most economically-sound options). It’s a good thing we now question ourselves on this more often; you can blame the 12-year absence of comprehensive reviews after 1998 for the bloat and drift that compelled such over-correction in 2010.
Last edited by Easy Street; 6th Dec 2019 at 19:53.
In practice, the people who work on SDSRs spend the time between them keeping strategy under continual review, as it should always be. The 2015 SDSR was quickly overtaken by Brexit, Trump, and deteriorating relations with Russia. We don’t carry on as if nothing changes until the next review. I think you are really referring to the equipment plan, which is only one component of a SDSR.
Equipment plan reviews are an opportunity to ask the difficult questions like “is programme ‘x’ still going to deliver what we need in ‘y’ years’ time?”. Again these questions are asked more frequently during spending reviews, but the SDSR is the chance to take stock across the whole of Defence. As for SDSRs interfering with programme lifecycles, my simple response is “sunk cost fallacy”. If it’s no longer expected to be relevant or offer good value for future expenditure, bin it immediately irrespective of prior investment. (I recognise that politics often militates against this but civil servants are duty-bound to offer ministers the most economically-sound options). It’s a good thing we now question ourselves on this more often; you can blame the 12-year absence of comprehensive reviews after 1998 for the bloat and drift that compelled such over-correction in 2010.
Reality today is that managing China is the key issue and that Russia is a potential ally and asset in that task, rather than a liability. That is not the existing paradigm, so the ongoing strategy reviews are not very useful, as they still run on mindsets dating back to Soviet days.
That is exactly the issue, the people doing the review are in an ongoing process, which makes it very difficult to recognize that the world has changed fundamentally.
Reality today is that managing China is the key issue and that Russia is a potential ally and asset in that task, rather than a liability. That is not the existing paradigm, so the ongoing strategy reviews are not very useful, as they still run on mindsets dating back to Soviet days.
Reality today is that managing China is the key issue and that Russia is a potential ally and asset in that task, rather than a liability. That is not the existing paradigm, so the ongoing strategy reviews are not very useful, as they still run on mindsets dating back to Soviet days.
Thread Starter
Thank you for the thoughtful responses.
No doubt one option is to try and retain maximum flexibility in all the forces but that is generally expensive and is at variance with the political wish for simple answers
No doubt one option is to try and retain maximum flexibility in all the forces but that is generally expensive and is at variance with the political wish for simple answers
Missing the point
Despite a lot of sensible, if misdirected, opinion on here, you all seem to have a peculiarly selfish focus.
The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.
You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.
The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.
Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.
The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.
Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.
The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.
You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.
The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.
Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.
The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.
Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.
Despite a lot of sensible, if misdirected, opinion on here, you all seem to have a peculiarly selfish focus.
The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.
You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.
The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.
Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.
The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.
Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.
The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.
You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.
The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.
Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.
The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.
Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.
None of these operations went ahead without the principal involvement of Typhoons, Tornados, infantry in the case of Sierre, etc. The chap who met his end at the hands of the met last week, wasn't an indication of a national security/defence threat. He was an example of the loop holes in sentencing policy. It is still within the remit of the Police to deal with such matters. The Armed Forces exist to confront a larger extensive, more varied and comprehensive threat. It is certainly the case that there are now additional strands to the spectrum but it isn't the case that defence concerns have wholly transitioned, or are transitioning to a narrow world of cyber threats and suicide bombers. These are additional concerns, but much for now, are contained by the anti-terrorist squad and GCHQ. How would you redress the balance as you see it? Would even a single squadron of F-35s be redundant? Would we fair far better simply pouring all resources into countering cyber threats, intercepting Russian attempts to interfere with elections, monitoring extremists and vastly increasing the budget for CID and the prison system. Would this be comprehensive enough and leave nothing else to chance?
FB
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What amazing insight and perception you have warren! You're right the Red Arrows contribued absolutely nothing to helping prevent that latest terror attack on London Bridge. On that basis let's get them disbanded asap, and we funnel all the gazillions they cost us into counter terrorism. Job done, medals all round and tea and biscuits on top.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite a lot of sensible, if misdirected, opinion on here, you all seem to have a peculiarly selfish focus.
The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.
You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.
The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.
Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.
The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.
Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.
The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.
You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.
The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.
Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.
The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.
Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite a lot of sensible, if misdirected, opinion on here, you all seem to have a peculiarly selfish focus.
The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.
You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.
The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.
Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.
The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.
Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.
The new world order cares not what you were trained to defend against.
You can all make all the noise you want about Russia, China and Syria.
The enemy faced by the people of the UK was on London Bridge recently. There is a limited amount of money to go around, and neither the Typhoon force, the Red Arrows or either of the two new carriers will prevent more of that.
Life has to go on, so Police, Air Ambulance & SAR aviation needs public money. Drones to attack either team in Syria, not so much.
The facts are: HMG has failed to secure safety at home, so the game of roaming the world trying to nip something in the bud, without knowing what it is, can't really be the way forward.
Sometimes, when you look so closely at the bigger picture, you don't see what's right in front of you.
The 24 hour news cycle, social media and irresponsible journalism have caused the nation to live in fear of a threat which is miniscule, albeit tragic when it does happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Britain#1970s
I would argue the single greatest threat to the UK today is 5G being installed which is giving non-friendly nations access to the ENTIRE countries data networks. Most people have no comprehension of what 5G is, it is NOT a mobile phone network, it is a data network that EVERYTHING can communicate with from mobile phones, computers, smart devices, your vehicle, credit cards etc. Think WiFi, but EVERYWHERE. If you would like some sleepless nights then I recommend this video. It's truly terrifying!
Thread Starter
I suppose we should be so frightened about Chinese 5G that we adopt American 5G instead - TBH I suspect the Chinese will have a lot harder job making anything useful out of my comms than the USA or GCHQ
Warren Peace's point is fatally flawed - even if we had everyone in the current UK Armed Forces redeployed against the "terrorist threat" it wouldn't stop things like the latest London Bridge shooting. It lasted 5 minutes - 300 seconds - and started inside a "private" building. Unless you have everyone in the UK guarded close up 24/7 by an armed guard (and the records show that they have to be guarded in case they go crazy and then the guards guards mighty go...) I can't see how you can do any better than they did last week.
Warren Peace's point is fatally flawed - even if we had everyone in the current UK Armed Forces redeployed against the "terrorist threat" it wouldn't stop things like the latest London Bridge shooting. It lasted 5 minutes - 300 seconds - and started inside a "private" building. Unless you have everyone in the UK guarded close up 24/7 by an armed guard (and the records show that they have to be guarded in case they go crazy and then the guards guards mighty go...) I can't see how you can do any better than they did last week.
How is success measured in the Ops you listed above? Was there a stated aim prior to the UK's involvement that it would be declared a success when those aims were achieved?