Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

[ArmChairCivvy]

Investment (as in EP, which also includes major equipment support) goes up - to maintain high visibility kit prgrms
... one or the other, or both of the following
- readiness (unit level exercises, partaking is larger ones)
- and manpower
go down.

An age old formula.
- if anything good happened in the US under Trump, it was that he nominated Mattis, who put an end to that vicious cycle

[BlueD954]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/24-b ... of-uk-jobs

The Next Generation Munitions Solution (NGMS) will see BAE Systems manufacture 39 different munitions for the Royal Navy, Army, Royal Air Force and Strategic Command to use on the front line, including small arms ammunition, mortars, medium-calibre gun rounds and large-calibre artillery and tank shells.

[Lord Jim]

With the exception of ammunition for the CTA40, what will be produced will be "Dumb" rounds, which of course we still need but none of the newer smart unitary and cargo rounds we desperately need also. As for Tank ammunition, again this will probably be rounds for use on the L30 CHARM 120mm whilst it remains in service. So good news but not fantastic as we are probably going to have to go overseas to get the high value highly capable ammunition we need now and in the future.

[AndyC]

The 2020 Spending Review

Prior to the Spending Review the government was committed to increasing defence spending by inflation + 0.5%. In real terms this amounts to an extra £2 billion over the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.

In the 2020 Spending Review the government announced it would provide an additional £16.5 billion for defence, making a total extra of £18.5 billion in real terms covering the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.

The government also announced commitments to military research & development, the National Cyber Force, Space Command and Artificial Intelligence totalling £3.8 billion.

Restoring the reductions made in the 2019 Equipment Plan budget requires £5.5 billion.

In addition, £2 billion is needed to cover the overspending in the Air Command Top Level Budget as a result of the unfunded purchase of the E-7 Wedgetail.

That leaves a total of £7.2 billion still to be committed.

If this extra funding is divided in the same way as the 2020/21 budget then 55% would be allocated to day-to-day running costs and 45% to the Equipment Plan.

That means an extra £3.95 billion for day-to-day spending, mostly personnel costs. As this represents about 4.5% of existing current spending that would be equal to an additional:
• 3,700 full-time troops
• 1,500 reservists
• 1,100 Royal Navy personnel
• 300 Royal Marines and
• 1,400 RAF personnel.

This leaves an extra £3.25 billion for the Equipment Plan.

[Clive F]

AndyC I think you are being over optimistic. Most of any extra cash will go on black hole / overspend. We are unlikely to see any expansion. Of course this is just a person view. Hope I'm wrong.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the government was committed to increasing defence spending by inflation + 0.5%. In real terms this amounts to an extra £2 billion over the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.

In the 2020 Spending Review the government announced it would provide an additional £16.5 billion for defence, making a total extra of £18.5 billion in real terms covering the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.

Cfr. the statement by PM
"I am increasing defence spending by £24.1 billion over the next four years,

That’s £16.5 billion more than our manifesto commitment -"

Even with this added on top

The government also announced commitments to military research & development, the National Cyber Force, Space Command and Artificial Intelligence totalling £3.8 billion.

there's still a bn+ unaccounted for, to reach the £ 24 bn+ total?

[AndyC]

AndyC
In the 2020 Spending Review the government announced it would provide an additional £16.5 billion for defence, making a total extra of £18.5 billion in real terms covering the four years from 2021/22 to 2024/25.

The gap between the total of £24.1 billion increased spending and the real increase of £18.5 billion is inflation.

[ArmChairCivvy]

A lovely way (in the same speech) of making money out of the thin air, mixing real and nominal, without mentioning it

[AndyC]

CliveF
AndyC I think you are being over optimistic. Most of any extra cash will go on black hole / overspend. We are unlikely to see any expansion. Of course this is just a person view. Hope I'm wrong.

The NAO report estimates the black hole for the ten years from 2019/20 as being somewhere between £2.9 billion and £13 billion.

After the changes listed above the central forecast would change to a surplus of £4.8 billion to a worst case scenario of a remaining deficit of £5.3 billion.

Overall I would characterise the 2020 Spending Review as being mildly good news as opposed to the hype that the PM was trying to generate!

[ArmChairCivvy]

remaining deficit of £5.3 billion.

To mitigate or amortise (with extra funds) over a half decade
... the best situation in a decade. Hammond did declare the gap closed; but somehow it reappeared in no time at all.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The " 0.2% transfer" of GDP getting finalised as per the work sheet for the Parliament today:
"Defence (10:30) has its annual look at the MoD Annual Report and Accounts 2019-20, with continuing concerns about whether it [looking forward] has the money to pay for its equipment programmes and other commitments.

International Development (14:30) will scrutinise the reduction to the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI, with evidence from the development sector, before hearing from the foreign secretary in January."

[ArmChairCivvy]

As we know from the Brexit thread, Britain’s influence in the world depends first and foremost on the health of her internal economy and the success of her export trade.
- without these, military power cannot in the long run be supported.
- in the true interests of the country the claims of military expenditure should be considered in conjunction with the need to maintain the country’s financial and economic strength

While the policies, both Brexit and the 4-yr defence settlement being promoted under the Global Britain umbrella, seem to be pulling in different directions, it is of course v welcome to put in the money to sustain the most important prgrms in the EP, may be even expedite some that relate to the Army transformation
- I still don't know where the 24 escorts target was pulled from
- but the irony is that from the 23 we had prior to the 2010 Review, we actually scrapped 4 of the finest ( the T22s; why not the T23 GPs instead?)

[J. Tattersall]

- I still don't know where the 24 escorts target was pulled from

Hazard a guess that it comes from OA.

[ArmChairCivvy]

it comes from OA

Sorry, what is OA?

[mr.fred]

it comes from OA

Sorry, what is OA?

Operational Analysis, usually

[ArmChairCivvy]

Operational Analysis, usually

Sounds more scientific than the standing tasks, used to justify the figure 19
- but many of which we just dropped like a brick when the escort availability dropped

The only time in recent years I have seen an OA justification (that's of course in the public domain, which does not imply that any such does not exist) was for the P-8s
- the number was 13, if anyone is interested

[Caribbean]

the number was 13, if anyone is interested

UK plus Norway, perhaps?

[ArmChairCivvy]

UK only, but with our total none could be spared to the Barents Sea.
- add Norway (+ a couple from the US in Keflavik), and suddenly those defined 'minimums' are met

[SW1]

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... nce-reform

Good morning, I would like to thank RUSI for giving me the opportunity to start setting out the reasoning behind the defence proposition for the Integrated Review and the MOD’s direction of travel from this point.

When last month the Prime Minister called me to confirm his determination to deliver a vision for Global Britain, and defence’s role in it, I knew he had created a real opportunity for us to not only deal with the legacy of previous flawed reviews, but to embark on a deep and far-ranging programme of reform.

The record multi-year settlement, especially in such challenging economic circumstances, is a recognition of him by the dangers in the world and a determination to properly fund the UK’s ambitions – this is a vision he and I have shared over a number of years.

For defence is one of Britain’s greatest exports – not just British-made equipment but British know-how and values. It is also one of the biggest innovators and employers across the whole of the United Kingdom.

As a former Security Minister who knows the threat inside out, I feared defence had lost touch with it. Instead of ‘threat’ driving us and our mission, it was infrastructure, HR and annual savings measures. The latter is of course important but secondary to the mission of defending this great nation from evolving threats and increasingly emboldened adversaries.

There was, of course, a multitude of quotes from officers dismissing new technologies, or failing to recognise that the battlefield had changed before their very eyes.

If contemporary newspaper reports are to be believed and I would caution you to take it with a pinch of salt:

In 1921 the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Lee argued for the abolition of the submarine. He was believed to have said “it had not proved an efficient weapon on defence.”

And many will be familiar with the reported quotes of Field Marshal Haig who argued that the value of the horse would be “as great as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the men and the horse, and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse – the well-bred horse – as you have ever done in the past.”

But to the many experts watching this you will know that tomorrow’s settlement doesn’t relieve our more immediate financial pressures. You don’t get out of a decade of deferrals and underfunding overnight.

Some tough choices will still have to be made. But those choices will allow us to invest in new domains, new equipment and new ways of working.

[ArmChairCivvy]

defence is one of Britain’s greatest exports – not just British-made equipment but British know-how and values.

The decades of funding deferrals were about to hit the buffers. Bogus efficiencies, saving targets, hollowing out
-yep

Our ‘rule of law’ approach, but it drives a static war and peace disposition. This makes us deeply vulnerable to those that don’t play by the same rules
-yep

The Secretary of State’s Office of Net Assessment and Challenge (SONAC) will encompass war gaming, doctrine, red teaming and external academic analysis.
-I wonder what that might be (have heard 'net assessment' before; It will focus and enhance existing efforts, work closely with Defence Intelligence and look across all areas of defence, especially doctrine and the equipment choices we are making.

- have asked Air Marshal Ed Stringer to advise me on its development. Ed’s background in joint force development and academia makes him excellently qualified to help establish it.

A good speech, anyway

[Lord Jim]

Agreed, his heart seems to be in the right place but I doubt even with the recent four year financial settlement we will have anything near the funding needed to transform things they way the Government aspires to. Having forces "Forward Deployed" seems to be key and does that include NATO with use reversing the policy of bring troops home and perhaps stationing troops permanently further East say in Poland?

[ArmChairCivvy]

No doubt the IR will say something on energy security (to live up to its name).

However, the Treasury plan for the l-t shares in supply indicates several new large new nuclear projects. With foreign partners and their investments falling off (no need to look for statistics, as cancelling planned investments won't show), I wonder how those projects can materialise
- beyond the new plant EDF is currently constructing at Hinkley Point, further doubts were raised over Britain’s nuclear future, when Hitachi walked away from plans to build a plant in Anglesey.
And then Toshiba followed, abandoning plans for a new nuclear facility in Cumbria.
- these developments do not materialise month by month as the projects themselves span decades. To me, looks like a trend, though

[Lord Jim]

Isn't the new plan for RR to develop smaller reactors that as self contained and that have the vessel replaced at the end of their lives, not refuelled, and replaced by a new reactor vessel plugged into the same infrastructure?

[ArmChairCivvy]

the Treasury plan

Isn't the new plan

I don't think these two strands have met so far; it would be interesting if the IR would depart from what the Treasury says about how the supply balance of energy will (likely) evolve over the next decades
- it won't - without their (our) money going into it
- so there might be no balance... lights out

[Lord Jim]

We seem to repeatedly expect Private Industry to pay for out infrastructure, whereas almost every other country sees it as a Governmental responsibility. Future energy supply is a case in point. We are being told that basically everyone will have to be driving an electric car in thirty years yet where is all the extra juice going to come from, we are currently maxing out our energy generating capacity so we don't just need to replace the old stations we have but we need extra, a lot extra. Provision of electricity should be a key Governmental duty.

As for security, having all out eggs in a few large baskets like Hinkley Point and the large off shore wind farms off the east coast mean that if these are taken off line the light really go out. Should we mothball our coal plants just in case rather than demolish them? Will the Military be an exception to the new world order and be allowed to retain diesel generators etc.? Should the security of nuclear power plants be an MoD responsibility in the form of the armed MoD Police?