Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents

Old 2nd Dec 2019, 08:37
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 407
UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents

Today's "Times" has an article about the Defence Review Boris has promised for next year - full of quotes from the usual band of ex-VSO's fighting the corner for their ex-Service

Army - must keep a "war fighting all arms Division of 20,000 men"

RAF - Accept no cuts, need extra 2 Typhoon squadrons

RN - Successor, more amphib , frigates - no mothballing or sale of the PoW


This one could run and run - but generally a UK SDR isn't good news for anyone
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 09:03
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,218
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
generally a UK SDR isn't good news for anyone
Actually SDSR15 was good news for all the services, especially the RAF. Too good, it would seem, given the slow progress made in delivering on it. If the next one takes any of it back then the services will have to shoulder a lot of the blame for having made unrealistic and unaffordable proposals.

Judging by the spending commitments being flung about like confetti in the current election campaign I strongly suspect Defence funding will stay no more than a whisker ahead of 2%. And who knows what the GDP forecasts would look like after a Brexit deal is done. If the SDSR happens in a hurry after the election then it will probably be finished ahead of any such forecasts, which would be very convenient indeed for a new Government looking to avoid hard choices. The big decisions will probably happen with much less fanfare (and lobbying) when the mid-term spending review sets out financial reality in 2022-23 or so...
Easy Street is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 10:48
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,196
The General Staff were recently reported to be looking to contract the size of the Army to about 65,000, or even less, in order to address the poor retention problem they have. I somehow don't think it'll work. Further, the Bun fight seems to have already started, with the Army and Navy the most vocal of all. The army are calling for one of the two new Carries to be loaned, or hired, to the US Navy. Both the two more senior arms are calling for the RAF to be folded as they see it, because soon all air warfare will be done by drones. I don't know how they've arrived at such a notion. Especially the RN with the prospect of an undeterminable number of F-35s in the pipeline for their two new massive aircraft carriers, which they want to hang on to and have objected to the Army's suggestion they be rented out.

Best regards,

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 10:56
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 407
Well the second carrier was always supposed to be "at readiness" i.e parked in Portsmouth but able to go into action relatively (= an undetermined period) quickly.

The one thing going for the RAF is that the Typhoon production line could do with a boost if only to retain the skill sets plus they get the P-8's and most of the drones

The Navy are getting their new frigates and patrol boats (and Succesor and the last "Astute")

The Army looked stuffed at the moment.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 11:13
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 196
A commitment to the F-35A for the RAF with a reduction in the B model procurement.
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 11:42
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by BVRAAM View Post
A commitment to the F-35A for the RAF with a reduction in the B model procurement.
Here Here, or Hear Hear! or which ever is the correct sentiment of this famous rallying call for support, I never knew which it was? Perhaps someone kindly erudite person could put me on the right track?!

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 11:59
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,191
Asturia56,

That changed ages ago with both fully crewed and operational.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 12:01
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,191
Finningley Boy,

"Hear, hear," as in "Hear him, Hear him!"
pr00ne is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 12:06
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
Finningley Boy,

"Hear, hear," as in "Hear him, Hear him!"
Many thanks sir, I could never recall whether it was over here over here or hear him hear him. I shall remember from here on in!

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 12:45
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
Asturia56,

That changed ages ago with both fully crewed and operational.
was that a definite promise, an intention or an aspiration? we see all 3 with respect to UK defence policy unfortunately
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 12:46
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by BVRAAM View Post
A commitment to the F-35A for the RAF with a reduction in the B model procurement.

The Naval Lobby would go into meltdown.................
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 12:57
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Scotland
Posts: 13
11 posts in and nobody mentioned the Scottish Play
Richard Dangle is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 13:34
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 59
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
The Naval Lobby would go into meltdown.................
They may make the case for all 138 to be B, but surely no more than 48 or 60 maximum would be justifiable. I'm sure the Navy would like to overtake the RAF's principal role, but if the RAF is going to be a truly expeditionary force then it is better off have the A variant. The RN I'm sure would try and thwart such a balance.

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 13:52
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
The Naval Lobby would go into meltdown.................
Oh well!

A cut to the B model and an A model buy would allow for more airframes overall because the A is considerably cheaper, and a refuelling boom upgrade to Voyager which would make the C-17, Poseidon and Airseeker communities very happy. Good for the Wedgetail, too, when it arrives.
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 14:28
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 639
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy View Post
They may make the case for all 138 to be B, but surely no more than 48 or 60 maximum would be justifiable. I'm sure the Navy would like to overtake the RAF's principal role, but if the RAF is going to be a truly expeditionary force then it is better off have the A variant. The RN I'm sure would try and thwart such a balance.

FB
If the RAF is to be expeditionary, then it might help to actually procure teh A4/A6 “stuff” to make it expeditionary.

And then reset the culture such as “OOADs”/“deployments” are routine and positive, not something to be whinged about - as many do on here.

Then you can work on supporting the RAF ISR community - in particular the PED - to get best value from the stuff we have.

And then sort out the flying training pipeline.

Then, perhaps, you might be in the market for new jets.
alfred_the_great is online now  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 15:01
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,236
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post

The Army looked stuffed at the moment.
Boxer? Only 20 years late, but welcome surely?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2...r-british-army
Davef68 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 15:34
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 407
Absolutely - Matthew 18 V10-14
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 15:36
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 407
Originally Posted by BVRAAM View Post
Oh well!

A cut to the B model and an A model buy would allow for more airframes overall because the A is considerably cheaper, and a refuelling boom upgrade to Voyager which would make the C-17, Poseidon and Airseeker communities very happy. Good for the Wedgetail, too, when it arrives.
More likely to mean the UK gets something closer to the "target" of 138 air-frames overall
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 15:56
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Down South
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
More likely to mean the UK gets something closer to the "target" of 138 air-frames overall
Yeah - I recall the UK was once buying 250 Typhoons. We have less than 150 in service. Sad.
BVRAAM is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 16:08
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,191
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
was that a definite promise, an intention or an aspiration? we see all 3 with respect to UK defence policy unfortunately
Asturia56,

It's just a fact.
pr00ne is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.