SDSR 2015

I wonder how much it is going to hurt.

The army are well in the firing line for this one.

Home from Germany and fighting over seas is over.

They have the biggest funding requirement just to maintain the status quo. Maybe some of those coming home from Germany will be forced out?

In the RN, the elephant in the room is trident replacement. I actually believe it may be time to not bother and hang up our deterrent boots so to speak.

It is a common rumour that HMS ocean will be a sacrificial lamb and be put to rest early/2019.

The 2nd carrier will probably go into immediate "extended readiness".

Maybe even lose boat 7 of the astute class programme.

Throw in an RFA vessel or two for the chop and a couple of MCMVs

The RAF. Anything goes really regarding cuts.

Although I think their MPA ability will be enhanced.

The Army

Our Army is already smaller now than it has been for centuries and in truth it's our soldiers that do most of the fighting (and dying) in war. But there is a opportunity for reform here as I understand the main structural problem with the Army is that because of the press outcry every time an historic old infantry regiment is disbanded (the so called 'cap badge' issue) politicians have tended to get rid of vital support units instead. This has resulted in the absurd situation where we now have too many understrength infantry battalions in our order of battle while not enough artillery, engineer and signal regiments etc are in existence to properly fulfil the 'Army 2020' plan.

Furthermore, the Army lacks the manpower now to establish all these surplus infantry battalions at full strength anyway. Therefore part-time TA (or ''Army Reserve'' as it is now known) soldiers must make up the numbers. Whether this concept of mixing part-time and regular soldiers together in the same unit would really work efficiently in the heat of battle remains to be seen. In conclusion I don't personally think that overall Army manpower can be prudently reduced very much, but there is a good case perhaps for fewer infantry battalions. http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/

The RAF

It is hard to see how the air force could be cut much further as it has already been pared to the bone you'd think. Transport aircraft, tankers and helicopters are surely indispensable in modern warfare and the record shows we are now down to our last 100 (or so) fast jets - of which only around 40 could be committed to operations at any one time. This is a minimal force.

Over a decade after its introduction our Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft are still not cleared to employ the full range of weapons in RAF use - because of funding problems again - while the Tornado bomber force dates back to the 1980's. Plans to acquire perhaps 150 F-35B aircraft to replace the Tornado's seem ludicrously optimistic at this time. However, I agree that to 'sweeten the pill' somewhat of more defence cuts some move towards reintroducing the MPA (maritime patrol aircraft) capability we lost when Nimrod MR4 was cancelled back in 2010 might be announced in the coming SDSR.

The Navy

The two huge new carriers we have under construction for the RN are mighty impressive ships, but unless sufficient funding can be found from somewhere to order meaningful numbers of aircraft to operate from them they are destined to become little more than expensive 'white elephants' I fear. Indeed, CVF as it stands is not a sensible cost-effective defence programme and (with hindsight) probably should not have been approved. Like the Army and RAF, the Royal Navy's destroyer and frigate force too has been reduced to a minimal size of just 19 ships. To retain even that small fleet some 13 new 'Type 26' frigates must be ordered to replace the old 'Type 23' class. Frankly I just cannot see that happening. I think it is too late to cancel Astute 07, but the RN will obviously not now receive the 8th SSN it stated was the minimum operational requirement.

The 'elephant in the room' when it comes to the defence issue is surely the ''Successor'' project - IE the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. I believe that this will turn out to be a £25bn - £30bn programme and spent elsewhere that scale of expenditure would be quite enough to fund all the regiments, aircraft and warships we could possibly need. Forecasts show that during the time of peak expenditure on ''Successor'' in the mid 2020's this programme is expected to consume 4 OUT OF EVERY 7 pounds we will have available to spend on defence equipment. Ironically, although arguably of dubious value, the nuclear deterrent is the one area of our national defence policy you can rest assured won't be starved of cash.

the is no boat 8 of the astute class. if they stick with the proposed 7, maybe a T-class will be retired early.

the biggest saving by a country mile would be getting rid of Trident. I was a huge believer in it. But how could be justified now with regards to defence spending.

Binning Trident will not mean all that money put back into defence but surely, it would, maybe enable us to have a properly resourced conventional force. get all type 26s planned, man and equip the mew carriers, sort out the disaster that is the type 45s let alone house the home coming of the thousands of troops from germany and sort the RAF out.

no doubt that will not happen

The submarine borne nuclear deterrent should be binned, it has no useful contribution to make to the current mode of military interventions that successive Governments are committing us to. ( Whether these operations are justified is an entirely different debate ).

The submarine borne nuclear deterrent should be binned, it ha no useful contribution to the current mode of military interventions that successive Governments are committing us to. ( Whether these operations are justified is an entirely different debate ).

until now, I would very much disagree. Just cannot see the point of it now given the spending climate. it is not just hardware, basic kit, uniform and such things are rationed all over the place. At best, I think will be committed to 3 new successor class/boats to replace the current 4. it will cost a bomb and the army, RAF and the current number of ships/subs will be cut to keep it.

Regardless of whether we can really afford it or not, the question of whether this nation still requires a nuclear deterrence in this day and age I think depends on how deep your personal belief in NATO and its core commitment to 'mutual defence' is. If ultimately you just don't trust the USA to fulfil its treaty obligations and employ its formidable strategic arsenal to deter/punish any attack on other NATO member states, then I suppose a reasonable case can be made perhaps for the continuance of the UK (and French) independent nuclear deterrence. If on the other hand you just can't see the US ever allowing Vladimir Putin, or some 'rouge' nuclear power perhaps, to 'pick off' the great capital cities of western Europe one by one with utter impunity, then we could probably better spend our limited defence budget elsewhere. You pays your money - you takes your choice.

In a ideal world I think it would be preferable that the heavy burden of funding (and controlling) NATO nuclear forces should be born by all member states rather than just the three. Realistically that unfortunately will not happen for a variety of reasons alas. Another option might be that we should gradually reduce spending on nuclear weapons and divert these monies instead into the new generation of advanced 'ABM' (Anti Ballistic Missile) technology that is now rapidly emerging. Such a policy would have the advantage that our future security would not then depend entirely upon the implicit threat of unleashing mass murder upon the civil populations of those who would threaten us.

It that sense such a truly defensive defence policy would be more morally compatible with the set of values nominally civilised societies such as ours purport to represent.

Not long now.

Rumours doing the rounds (and from people closer to the actual thing and snippets in the press)

The RN could see an uplift in personnel of at least 2500 - allowing the RN to man both new carriers and help plug the manning shortfalls

this in addition to an uplift in personnel that will happen next year regardless (basically, too many were made redundant last time - sound familiar to some?)

The RN could actually grow in hull numbers

BOTH carriers will be fully used and manned (when in service)

the massive challenge is the retention of engineers in the RN. huge problems there

Fast Jet squadrons in the RAF will increase to 12 (with older typhoons and tornados being kept in service quite a bit longer)

this will essentially double the RAF FJ numbers.

basically, the Army will take the brunt of it all in order to re-shape our forces to a more power projection based capacity in these days of penny counting.

but the rumours are the RN will do well in this SDSR for a change. (unlike last time)

I wonder if we will see a 'soldier to sailor' scheme that the yanks have done when laying off engineering types in the Army?

Good stuff my friend - any news on new maritime patrol aircraft?

Navy the big loser again, it seems

Good stuff my friend - any news on new maritime patrol aircraft?

Aren't you buying some P8s from Boeing ? Think they're already ordered.

Aren't you buying some P8s from Boeing ? Think they're already ordered.

8 of them apparently.

This was after scrapping NIMRODs in service and in build.

Navy wanted 2000 extra people and looks like it will 450 and more cuts to the surface fleet.

ah well

8 of them apparently.

 

This was after scrapping NIMRODs in service and in build.

 

Navy wanted 2000 extra people and looks like it will 450 and more cuts to the surface fleet.

ah well

Need to get yourselves some terrorist attacks then, Hollande had to cancel all of the defence cuts programmed up until 2019 last week. My lad got an instant promotion as well.

Definitely would not bother replacing Trident, will be a bigger white elephant than those two **** off big aircraft carriers.

I think the days are gone where major civilised nations want to blow the sh!t out of each other, wars now tend to be of the guerrilla civil type.

Type 26 reduced from 13 to "about 8".

F**king ridiculous.

Type 26 reduced from 13 to "about 8".

 

F**king ridiculous.

Perhaps, then again you have to ask yourself what exactly you'd need 13 Global Combat ships to do . There are no naval combats at all at the moment, there are surveillance missions, training exercises but apart from escorting the odd stray

Russian destroyer off of the coast of Scotland there's not much on just now. 8 is probably enough, especially when you consider the advanced intelligence level needed amongst the reduced complements.

Perhaps, then again you have to ask yourself what exactly you'd need 13 Global Combat ships to do . There are no naval combats at all at the moment, there are surveillance missions, training exercises but apart from escorting the odd stray

Russian destroyer off of the coast of Scotland there's not much on just now. 8 is probably enough, especially when you consider the advanced intelligence level needed amongst the reduced complements.

8 is no where near enough.

looks like HMS Ocean could face the chop. When, who knows

8 is no where near enough.

 

looks like HMS Ocean could face the chop. When, who knows

To do what exactly? The UK has no colonies to protect, no vast stretches of territorial waters to patrol and there are no foreseeable naval combat zones. It will just lead to loads of idle matelots doing endless NATO and EUMAFOR drills.

Look at our FREMM campaign, originally there were to be 19 I think,reduced to 8. We have put 5 afloat, sold 1 to the Maroccans, sold one of ours to the Egyptians although I doubt that they'll ever pay us anyway. The Aquitaine is not yet in full service even after ' years of "trials" and the other 2 are swanning about on promotional tours trying to get 3rd world nations to buy a couple. Every NATO drill is US led and they have tens of Arleigh Burkes to put to use every time. At this time there is no need for a great number of European

combat vessels.

Just had a quick read of the government SDSR booklet

Highlights

- UK Leads the world in projecting 'soft power' and will continue

- we will continue to protect our 14 over sea territories.

- As above. continue to back the Falkland islanders wish to remain 'British'

- Combat the increased cyber threat

- by 2030 it is predicted that the world will demand 50% more fuel and food and 30% more water

will protect British interests in this area

- Will keep an eye on Russia as they continue to invest heavily into their defence capabilities

- Work with the people in Northern Ireland to keep them safe

- Manage UK's borders more effectively

- Do more to combat serious and organised crime

- Have a more agile armed force to react to world crisis

- React to the resurgence of state sponsored threats

- Maintain the nuclear deterrent through 2050 with the successor programme

- Bolster security and intelligence services

- Continue to contribute to NATO's Ballistic Missile Defence Network as more nations around the world have nuclear weapons

- Bolster the RN's Gibraltar squadron

- Bolster the bases in Cyprus

- Meet 2% of GDP for the armed forces

Navy will look like this in 2025

4x SSBN

7x SSN

2x Carriers

19x FF/DD

6x Patrol Ships

12x Mine hunters

3x Survey Ships

1x Ice patrol ship

2x LPD

3x LSD

9x Fleet and support/solid tankers

4x Merlin SQDNs

2x Wildcat SQDNs

3 CDO Brigade, Royal Marines

(see 3 mine sweepers, couple of RFAs and HMS Ocean missing there)

- Enhancing joint forces command

- Enhance special forces

- Increase number of F35 to purchase

Armed forces to

Support humanitarian assistance and disaster response, and conduct rescue missions.

• Conduct strike operations.

• Conduct operations to restore peace and stability.

• Conduct major combat operations if required, including under NATO Article 5

- Look to increase the number of FF/DDs from 2030 onwards

not to shabby looking at it

Type 26 reduced from 13 to "about 8".

 

F**king ridiculous.

Just read something that it could be 8 T26s with 5 smaller, lighter frigates built to make up the required 13

Just read something that it could be 8 T26s with 5 smaller, lighter frigates built to make up the required 13

Yes, there have been some pretty swift clarifications going on this evening. I am also going to hazard a guess that the "lighter frigate" will still be a T26 hull with some scaled down capability at least at first (redesigning is expensive). From what I understand, there was always going to be 2 batches in terms of capability; an ASW batch using the 2087 sonar off the T23s, and a general-purpose batch.

Anyway, looks like every hull of the in-service T23s is going to be replaced, and two extra OPVs will take over home patrol. Would have been nice to see the original 16 replaced though. Anyway, I guess the RN will have more presence at sea than it has currently. Just seems that this strange gradual procurement practice is taking over.

The most important 2015 SDSR development is I think acquiring new Boeing P8 'Poseidon' maritime patrol aircraft. The decision to scrap this vital capability, back in the 2010 SDSR, was a shockingly bad one that should never have been even contemplated. Retaining more (tranche 1) Typhoon aircraft in RAF service is also welcome - the old plan to reduce the air force to a mere six fast jet squadrons was rather worrying. The stated aim to ultimately order over a hundred F-35 fighter aircraft is pushed so far into the (unpredictable) distant future as to be virtually meaningless.

Although I note the promise of a cheaper frigate type is offered, I'm less happy to learn that the Royal Navy's vital Type 26 programme is to be FURTHER delayed and reduced in scale to just eight hulls now. Ordering more (virtually useless from a warfighting perspective) OPV's just in order to keep the Scottish yards busy in the meantime is perhaps the worst outcome of this SDSR. The cost of renewing our nuclear deterrent is now estimated to be at least some £31bn - thirty one thousand million pounds! A eye-watering pile of cash by any measure.

As for the Army, its disappointing to see that overall manpower numbers remain unaltered and details are lacking on how these new 'strike' brigades will effect its existing force structure. However, the renewed emphasis on supporting our Special Forces is probably wise given the situation we face.

The most important 2015 SDSR development is I think acquiring new Boeing P8 'Poseidon' maritime patrol aircraft. The decision to scrap this vital capability, back in the 2010 SDSR, was a shockingly bad one that should never have been even contemplated. Retaining more (tranche 1) Typhoon aircraft in RAF service is also welcome - the old plan to reduce the air force to a mere six fast jet squadrons was rather worrying. The stated aim to ultimately order over a hundred F-35 fighter aircraft is pushed so far into the (unpredictable) distant future as to be virtually meaningless.

 

Although I note the promise of a cheaper frigate type is offered, I'm less happy to learn that the Royal Navy's vital Type 26 programme is to be FURTHER delayed and reduced in scale to just eight hulls now. Ordering more (virtually useless from a warfighting perspective) OPV's just in order to keep the Scottish yards busy in the meantime is perhaps the worst outcome of this SDSR. The cost of renewing our nuclear deterrent is now estimated to be at least some £31bn - thirty one thousand million pounds! A eye-watering pile of cash by any measure.

 

As for the Army, its disappointing to see that overall manpower numbers remain unaltered and details are lacking on how these new 'strike' brigades will effect its existing force structure. However, the renewed emphasis on supporting our Special Forces is probably wise given the situation we face.

I personally would like to see the UK really have a strategic defence review, the result being that most investment goes into RAF and RN for nation defence (we are an island nearly starved into submission twice in the last century) and contribution to international peacekeeping, and the Army kept at current level or slightly scaled back further for domestic defence and disaster support. We should then tune our contribution to NATO accordingly. The intelligence / special forces increase should remain to combat terrorism and cyberwarfare of course, but I cannot visualise the day of mass infantry and armour formations advancing on tactical targets any more.

This means the target should be more planes and ships, not rapid reaction forces. I guess the political lobby for the Army is too big (I note all CDS appointments now come from the Army).

one for Alpine

Looks like HMS Ocean will be decommissioned in 2018

one for Alpine

 

Looks like HMS Ocean will be decommissioned in 2018

No surprise really, what with the committment to commission both carriers. QE will be commissioned by then (but not operating F35s yet).

Besides, and maybe you can confirm this, there was some controversy about the awarding of the contract to build her; she was considered a very cheap-and-nasty solution I recall. She's probably falling to bits. I notice Wiki is saying she is going straight to scrap. Still, a short life for such a capital ship.

I also guess Argus could fill-in if needed (if Albion or Bulwark are not available).

No surprise really, what with the committment to commission both carriers. QE will be commissioned by then (but not operating F35s yet).

 

Besides, and maybe you can confirm this, there was some controversy about the awarding of the contract to build her; she was considered a very cheap-and-nasty solution I recall. She's probably falling to bits. I notice Wiki is saying she is going straight to scrap. Still, a short life for such a capital ship.

 

I also guess Argus could fill-in if needed (if Albion or Bulwark are not available).

I know that 2018 was her long planned decommissioned date anyway. It was never built to last more than 20 years.

it was a very 'cheap' ship compared to others.

I know that 2018 was her long planned decommissioned date anyway. It was never built to last more than 20 years.

it was a very 'cheap' ship compared to others.

Surely it makes more sense to build cheap ships with a design life of 20 years than to keep refitting the electronics, engines, pumps etc on outdated hulls?

Surely it makes more sense to build cheap ships with a design life of 20 years than to keep refitting the electronics, engines, pumps etc on outdated hulls?

Why? the RAF have been doing that for years....

The Nimrod R1 was (somehow) kept in the sky for 40 years, the Hunter and Jet Provost for a similar time, and the Hawk is still going at just under 40 years

Why? the RAF have been doing that for years....

 

The Nimrod R1 was (somehow) kept in the sky for 40 years, the Hunter and Jet Provost for a similar time, and the Hawk is still going at just under 40 years

How many people keep a car for 40 years? Its possible but not desirable. Refurbishing old equipment has got more to do with how Government allocates money than military need - tight scrutiny and political control of new capital expenditure but much less so on drip drip maintenance and operational upgrades.

Surely it makes more sense to build cheap ships with a design life of 20 years than to keep refitting the electronics, engines, pumps etc on outdated hulls?

The cost ship building in this country is apprently huge. RN ships are to be made in the UK by law. Also, keep the jocks happy (not a peep from them regarding the expanded order of extra OPVs)

Ocean was slightly different. It is mostly open space inside and has a very small ships company for a ship that size. It was essentially two different ships bolted together (or soemthing weird like that) hence the the relatively short life span

A proper warship can last for decades. The americans have them for 40+ years in many cases. Ours do not last quite that long as they get 'ragged' so to speak. Do far more work per unit than their US counter part. Due to the ridiculously low number of hulls

The 4 MARS tankers were built in South Korea (If i think rightly) and we ordered 4.

They produced 4 ships at the same time to a very high spec at a fraction of the price (and time) that the ship yard in Glasgow would do it for. Then again, the jocks would kick right off and claim they are being punished by England or something like that if we managed to get warhips built elsewhere.

The cost ship building in this country is apprently huge. RN ships are to be made in the UK by law. Also, keep the jocks happy (not a peep from them regarding the expanded order of extra OPVs)

Ocean was slightly different. It is mostly open space inside and has a very small ships company for a ship that size. It was essentially two different ships bolted together (or soemthing weird like that) hence the the relatively short life span

 

A proper warship can last for decades. The americans have them for 40+ years in many cases. Ours do not last quite that long as they get 'ragged' so to speak. Do far more work per unit than their US counter part. Due to the ridiculously low number of hulls

 

The 4 MARS tankers were built in South Korea (If i think rightly) and we ordered 4.

They produced 4 ships at the same time to a very high spec at a fraction of the price (and time) that the ship yard in Glasgow would do it for. Then again, the jocks would kick right off and claim they are being punished by England or something like that if we managed to get warhips built elsewhere.

Interesting you brought up the MARS tankers.

I was wondering, seeing how they appear to be doing such an outstanding job (in budget, on time, good quality) why we dont transfer the whole T26 project (up to launch, at least) down there ? Fitting of sensittive systems could be done in the UK still.

Laws can be changed.

I do sense that BAE / VT have upped their game (at least in terms of quality) with the carriers, however. Pity they are still so damn expensive. Gerald Fords arent costing the US much more money and time to build...

Definitely would not bother replacing Trident, will be a bigger white elephant than those two **** off big aircraft carriers.

 

I think the days are gone where major civilised nations want to blow the sh!t out of each other, wars now tend to be of the guerrilla civil type.

The two carriers are far from white elephants