Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 20:34
SW1 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 18:55
mrclark303 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 18:16
SW1 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 10:18 AUKUS is a technology development and information sharing pact its isn’t as military tasking one
I disagree, it actually represents nothing less than the foundation concrete pour of an East of Suez pivot, a reversal of the Wilson Governments 'retreat to Cyprus' policy of 1968.

Call me an optimist, but we are now seeing the utter folly of making defence a whipping boy and robbing it blind for decades.
Even Labour is promising 3% and sustained investment in defence, so there should hopefully be some continuity, as the Political parties pass the Government baton backwards and forwards for years to come .... Hopefully!!!
The UK has never left east of suez there’s been more forces stationed east of suez the past 20 years than ever with Afghanistan.

I would disagree with your characterisation of wiping boy, a very significant amount of money has been spent on defence every year, defence has been its own worst enemy for a significant period of time.
We will probably have to agree to disagree SW1, the pointless Sandbox wars are more of a Bush/ Blair diversion in central Asia that have accomplished absolutely nothing but to destabilise the whole region and empower Iran ...

The years of fighting in Afghanistan caused untold damage to our armed forces, as precious resources were pulled away to underpin and fund a substantial presence in that barren Waistland.

I am taking about a pivot towards the Indian and Pacific oceans.

As far as defence spend, it was party balloons and ice-cream when we managed 2%GDP, it's no where near the required levels of defense and part of the entirely made up and fictitious post war peace dividend...

3% is a sensible level of spending and a great deal can be done with sustained spending at that level on the right force disposition and equipment for our needs.
We probably will. I think the pre 2003 intervention and force composition was both necessary and balanced what happened post that was unforgivable. But not the point,it was more we’ve never left east of suez.

For the military an Asian pivot is complete folly. We have so many issues and so many things going on in our own back yard we have our hands full. We work together with allies in the pacific with information and technology sharing to ensure that both we in a our area of responsibility and them in there area of responsibility can uphold security we don’t need to physically be there militarily.

I do not like percentages as a way to define defence. Yes I get it’s an easy top level indicator for the papers but I’d much prefer defence planning assumptions based on scale of committing what and were and for how long as guide to what the armed forces should look like

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Repulse »

There needs to be a focus on Europe, but the folly is to think that everything that happens outside of the region does not matter.

I’m ok with more war fighting assets in Europe, balanced with lower level presence forces in other region’s combined with a first rate globally deployable war fighting force.

That means for me more ASW/ISR assets for the North Atlantic, a deployable but not necessarily larger Army properly equipped (stop wasting money on Ajax), long range artillery/missiles, BMD, increased lethality for the RN/RAF and above all increased stocks and energy/food security.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 09:30 Seems to be growing pressure to kill the “Indo Pacific Tilt” direction outlined in the last SDR. It looks ideologically driven and now almost given with the financial problems and expected priorities of HMG. Bloody stupid and shortsighted IMO, when the global fallout from a China / Taiwan conflict will make Ukraine look a minor bar brawl. But still the chances of Russia invading NATO by land seems to be high enough for some BAOR fanatics to want to focus funds on a brigade or two sat on the continent.

Anyway, with no tilt the last remaining reason for the T31 as a global low threat escort dies. And the RN should be selling the 5 before they get into service to the likes of NZ, Poland, Chile etc. With the focus on NATO and North Atlantic, with reducing reliance on fossil fuels Kipion can go also, meaning that the RN could probably survive with the 6 T45 and 8 ASW T23s until the T26s come online. The two Wave class can be disposed of also. LRG(S) can be killed for a single LRG based around the two LPDs, two LSDs (one more to be sold) and a CVF (Argus no longer required).

This will hopefully secure enough cash to buy the 2 MRoSS, 2-3 SSSs and replacements for the 3 B1 Rivers (needed to monitor Russian “Research” vessels), properly kitting the T45/T23/T26s, with the hope of T32 jam tomorrow.
I moved this comment over here because I think it’s more appropriate for this thread. If the military force part of the tilt is being re-evaluated then good. Nor is it an ideological position. The UK engagement with the Asia pacific has to be predominantly diplomatic, intelligence and technological engagement with our allies in the region not military force based.

If there is a China/Taiwan conflict then we would be doing little in such a conflict beyond offering trident cover to our allies such as aus, Singapore and nz in region. The lesson of Ukraine is that if you wish to help Taiwan you help them now with the supply of equipment to defend themselves not when the shooting start.

Where we the UK can counter China is not the South China Sea but there expansion into north and west Africa and in particular there growing influence in Equatorial Guinea and the Gulf of Guinea. Not to mention their operations in the UK and Europe.

On the point of Russia our North Sea infrastructure and that of Norways is again shown as critical. Engagement around Cyprus and diplomatic ties with Egypt and Turkey need careful tlc and management. I don’t think there is a serious return to boar mantra but there is a real need for a continued presence in Baltic states as they have requested our assistance as they are rightly very nervous about Russian aggression. Add to that Finland and Sweden joining nato and a need to support them we will see the need to have ground forces able to deploy and operate in the north to help defend their and NATOs borders.

Above all the need to be able to gather intelligence underpins everything and something we are going to need to increase assets assigned to. So perhaps the MRSS should move up the priority chart especially if a main task will be to help support the assets that gather that intelligence.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 10:29 The UK engagement with the Asia pacific has to be predominantly diplomatic, intelligence and technological engagement with our allies in the region not military force based.
Without assets in region then both the UK’s diplomatic and intelligence gathering capability will be limited. Having assets like the Rivers combined with more significant deployments of a CSG or SSNs, with similar lo/hi Army / RAF contributions turns the UK from a relative irrelevance to something that can add weight to our allies.

SW1 wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 10:29 If there is a China/Taiwan conflict then we would be doing little in such a conflict beyond offering trident cover to our allies such as aus, Singapore and nz in region. The lesson of Ukraine is that if you wish to help Taiwan you help them now with the supply of equipment to defend themselves not when the shooting start.
True - that and the ability to continue to supply when a conflict starts. The first thing China will do is impose a blockade, what is the UKs contribution then?
SW1 wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 10:29 Where we the UK can counter China is not the South China Sea but their expansion into north and west Africa and in particular their growing influence in Equatorial Guinea and the Gulf of Guinea. Not to mention their operations in the UK and Europe.
Yes, war or triggering instability through proxies is a given. This is again where with its Commonwealth roots the UK can play a role. This again highlights why focusing solely on Europe is folly.
SW1 wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 10:29 I don’t think there is a serious return to boar mantra but there is a real need for a continued presence in Baltic states as they have requested our assistance as they are rightly very nervous about Russian aggression. Add to that Finland and Sweden joining nato and a need to support them we will see the need to have ground forces able to deploy and operate in the north to help defend their and NATOs borders.
The UK’s contribution should be highly mobile battlegroups. By all means let’s have an armoured brigade but it should be part of a force that can be deployed globally from the UK, not based on the continent.
SW1 wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 10:29 Above all the need to be able to gather intelligence underpins everything and something we are going to need to increase assets assigned to. So perhaps the MRSS should move up the priority chart especially if a main task will be to help support the assets that gather that intelligence.
Agreed, I’d be adding some more ISR kit to the B2 Rivers also.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 17:36
SW1 wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 10:29 The UK engagement with the Asia pacific has to be predominantly diplomatic, intelligence and technological engagement with our allies in the region not military force based.
Without assets in region then both the UK’s diplomatic and intelligence gathering capability will be limited. Having assets like the Rivers combined with more significant deployments of a CSG or SSNs, with similar lo/hi Army / RAF contributions turns the UK from a relative irrelevance to something that can add weight to our allies.

SW1 wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 10:29 If there is a China/Taiwan conflict then we would be doing little in such a conflict beyond offering trident cover to our allies such as aus, Singapore and nz in region. The lesson of Ukraine is that if you wish to help Taiwan you help them now with the supply of equipment to defend themselves not when the shooting start.
True - that and the ability to continue to supply when a conflict starts. The first thing China will do is impose a blockade, what is the UKs contribution then?
SW1 wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 10:29 Where we the UK can counter China is not the South China Sea but their expansion into north and west Africa and in particular their growing influence in Equatorial Guinea and the Gulf of Guinea. Not to mention their operations in the UK and Europe.
Yes, war or triggering instability through proxies is a given. This is again where with its Commonwealth roots the UK can play a role. This again highlights why focusing solely on Europe is folly.
SW1 wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 10:29 I don’t think there is a serious return to boar mantra but there is a real need for a continued presence in Baltic states as they have requested our assistance as they are rightly very nervous about Russian aggression. Add to that Finland and Sweden joining nato and a need to support them we will see the need to have ground forces able to deploy and operate in the north to help defend their and NATOs borders.
The UK’s contribution should be highly mobile battlegroups. By all means let’s have an armoured brigade but it should be part of a force that can be deployed globally from the UK, not based on the continent.
SW1 wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 10:29 Above all the need to be able to gather intelligence underpins everything and something we are going to need to increase assets assigned to. So perhaps the MRSS should move up the priority chart especially if a main task will be to help support the assets that gather that intelligence.
Agreed, I’d be adding some more ISR kit to the B2 Rivers also.
The uk has plenty of assets in the region and is expanding them but they are not MoD assets they are the foreign and commonwealth office assets. Eg embassy’s and there personnel. You do not interact with the decision makers in the middle of the sea.

The uk would have the same options to a blockade as they had when the tanks started rolling into Ukraine or ships started blockading crimea. Nothing militarily to unblock it.

Euro and Atlantic has always been where the focus should be militarily, no one has ever said just Europe.

The uk does not need to deploy armoured brigades world wide. The need for out of area battlegroups to be deployable yes, the old rapid reaction force laid down the metric of what over what distance it’s why I would like to see 1 div having a much higher priority.

I’m not sure adding ISR kits to a river does much. Your looking much more to space based ,high altitude ISR and sigint. Developing the old vc10 sniffer pod concept would be of interest. It would of been more sensible to have keep echo in the Far East if they wanted a naval presence.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Do we really expect to be able deploy Armoured forces globally? How many Challenger 3 or M270 MLRS will fit into a C-17A Globemaster III or A400M Atlas??

We have the Ranger Regiments being advanced depolyed abroad, and the 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team as rapid response airborne formation. Beyond that we could field Light Infantry Battalions, perhaps with MRAP vehicles for mobility. I am not sure we have enough Strategic Airlift resources to move anything heavier if we are looking at globally deployable Army units?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by mr.fred »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 19:59 Do we really expect to be able deploy Armoured forces globally? How many Challenger 3 or M270 MLRS will fit into a C-17A Globemaster III or A400M Atlas??
I would have thought that the two questions are tenuously related at best. If you're deploying armour you're going by sea.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

mr.fred wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 20:40
wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 19:59 Do we really expect to be able deploy Armoured forces globally? How many Challenger 3 or M270 MLRS will fit into a C-17A Globemaster III or A400M Atlas??
I would have thought that the two questions are tenuously related at best. If you're deploying armour you're going by sea.
So we are saying that we have a globally deployable Armoured force, so long as we can send it by sea??
How long would it take to deploy an Armoured Battalion via Point class to say Brunei?
Not to mention what naval assets would need to be deployed to protect it on route?

What happens if we want to deploy said Armoured Battalion to a landlocked country.....

In case my meaning is nt clear, I feel we can realistically ONLY deploy an Armoured Battalion to Northern Europe. I think that deploying an Armoured Battalion to even Southern Europe would be beyond our current capacities, let alone a "Globally Deployable" Armoured Battalion!!

If we are wanting Army units to be "Globally Deloyable", then as I mentioned in my previous post we would have to rely on Ranger Regiments being advanced deployed abroad, the 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team as rapid response airborne formation and maybe Light Infantry Battalions, perhaps with MRAP vehicles for tactical mobility on the ground.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by mr.fred »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 22:44 So we are saying that we have a globally deployable Armoured force, so long as we can send it by sea??
Yes.
wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 22:44 How long would it take to deploy an Armoured Battalion via Point class to say Brunei?
Less time that it would take to airlift them, even if we had twice our transport fleet
wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 22:44 Not to mention what naval assets would need to be deployed to protect it on route?
Vs air assets to secure an air corridor?
wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 22:44 What happens if we want to deploy said Armoured Battalion to a landlocked country.....
You seek passage through adjacent countries which are not landlocked. If you can't get it you don't go, just like if you can't get overflight clearance you can't go either.
wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 22:44 In case my meaning is nt clear, I feel we can realistically ONLY deploy an Armoured Battalion to Northern Europe. I think that deploying an Armoured Battalion to even Southern Europe would be beyond our current capacities, let alone a "Globally Deployable" Armoured Battalion!!
The Royal Navy still exists, We can deploy what little armour we have over quite a large proportion of the globe with that.
wargame_insomniac wrote: 27 Oct 2022, 22:44 If we are wanting Army units to be "Globally Deloyable", then as I mentioned in my previous post we would have to rely on Ranger Regiments being advanced deployed abroad, the 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team as rapid response airborne formation and maybe Light Infantry Battalions, perhaps with MRAP vehicles for tactical mobility on the ground.
How do you plan to get your MRAPs to wherever you have just dropped off your light infantry? If you intend to sustain your forces you need much of your air fleet for that. Trying to sustain armoured vehicles is going to be challenging at best with air assets only.

I think that you may be putting more caveats onto "Globally Deployable" than the literal interpretation covers.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
Repulse

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

An interesting and relevant take on uk security and defence policy

https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-conten ... Review.pdf

The British government is faced with an extraordinary range of crises. The analysis of this paper suggest they be gripped in the following order. Russia’s illegal invasion Ukraine is the cause of most of the woe. If Russia wins the problems grow and become entrenched, and we will pay the costs for decades. If Ukraine defeats Russia’s invasion then the opposite occurs, we have a more benign global security environment and the residual threats become manageable. The first priority, therefore, is to confirm our absolute commitment to supporting Ukraine and see it prevail.

To assist in that, to weaken Russia’s hybrid attack vectors, and stave off the complaints at home over the economic impacts, the Government should approach energy security and energy policy in the round as they would an existential, wartime challenge. This will involve working with allies and so will guide foreign policy. That foreign policy should more actively court the main players of the Global South, who have to date not got involved in Ukraine but stand to face real hardship from the consequences of the Ukraine conflict.

There are many matters pressing on the Government; these are but the foreground detail of a geostrategic backdrop in upheaval. This once in several centuries scale of change was well captured by the Integrated Review of last year. Recent events, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, allow us to calibrate the relative import of the major factors. It is important when dealing with the urgent not to lose sight of the important in the long-term. That is why this paper frames suggested immediate action within that longer term analysis to show they are suitably geared.

The major theme is the interlinking of matters not previously considered together as national security concerns. Thus climate change, a major national security issue, should be coupled with energy security in the round to avoid the geostrategic pitfalls seen in Europe during Russia’s war in Ukraine. Similar concerns, but much more broadly based, exist in our dependence on another competitor nation-state: China. The high-ground of that competition is indeed in science and technology, and government could well do to revisit associated industrial and R&D policies.

We should learn from the Russian experience and reduce our collective exposure across The West to vital supply chains that have origins in or are threatened by China. The obvious test case is the supply of semiconductors.

Energy security questions, and their impact on GDP growth in a time of economic turmoil and recession, provide a vehicle for rebuilding European relationships post Brexit - both with the EU but also with those closely allied nations who have shared our appreciation of the threat posed by Russia and the need to support Ukraine in its war. Many of these are in the JEF, and that essentially military relationship can be built upon to rebuild European relationships and networks to deliver a much wider national resilience.

Finally, UK Defence has much to learn from the Ukraine War and the manner in which a country with a Defence budget one tenth of our own constructed a defence that held off the army of an assumed superpower. If, as argued, Russia emerges diminished from its war on Ukraine then we should recalculate our part in supporting NATO to deter further Russian aggression. This should result in costed war plans and adequate weapons stockpiles. An independent review of the lessons learned should be carried out to prevent selective interpretation by interested parties within UK Defence. The resulting report will be useful in assessing the character of future war as we face the increasing threat posed by China, which has greatly overtaken that posed by Russia. The challenge posed by these adversaries is one that cannot be left to a joint force created by the accidents of several, independent sub-forces developed by the three services. A few, if exquisitely capable, pieces of frontline equipment with scant ammunition in the magazine is not a war-winning proposition to deter serious adversaries.

The most urgent conclusion of this paper is that the Levene reforms of 2013 should be significantly reversed, and the UK needs a properly constituted Military Strategic Headquarters at the apogee of the armed forces. One tasked to deliberately direct all four frontline commands towards the collective endeavour of being ready to fight and win the next war.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... ember-2022

But tonight I’d like to describe how we’re already making this evolutionary leap in three other places.

First, as we stand by Ukraine, we’re also reinvigorating our European relationships to tackle challenges like security and illegal migration.

Second, we’re taking a longer-term view on China, strengthening our resilience and protecting our economic security.

And third, we’re seizing the huge opportunities on offer in the Indo-Pacific by building deep and long-lasting partnerships.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »




SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 10:32 Lots to pick through here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... cture-2022

“But it’s also about thinking big: accelerating the transformation of the Armed Forces to become even more lethal and integrated. Maximising the capabilities that offer a decisive advantage. Being even more global in our outlook.

Might that mean an Army equipped with anti-ship or hypersonic missiles capable of striking the enemy thousands of kilometres away?

Might it mean a British carrier regularly deployed in the Indo-Pacific at the heart of an allied strike group?

Or an ambition to embrace drones on a far greater scale than previously envisaged – perhaps in the order of 10,000 by 2030?”
Lots of big thinking but are the politicians going to fund it?

Forward basing a CVF in Australia and a LRG in Duqm makes a lot of sense but it will be massively expensive. Unrealistic without a very large increase in funding. However, it would be a much more meaningful contribution than a couple of underarmed OPVs bobbing around making friends.

10,000 drones within 7 years? The ambition is impressive but again, funded from where? Even if a lesser target of 5k to 8k is settled upon RN will have to play a large part to get anywhere near that number regardless if the bulk are loitering munitions which must be likely. RN need to be careful about future planning here and I think the penny is dropping in the corridors of power, warfare on both land and at sea is changing rapidly. The fleet will need to change and drone carriers are going to be crucial going forward.
‘ There is not some easy option of focusing on our own backyard while leaving the US and others to deal with the rest of the world. The two are inextricably linked. And once again, Europe is the beneficiary of American generosity.

Were the US to contemplate a more radical pivot to the Indo-Pacific, it would cost NATO’s European nations more than $300 billion over 10 years to match US current investment in our security.

We also need to consider the melting of the ice caps in the coming decades, which will unleash a difficult new competition for minerals and resources; halve the time it takes for shipping to travel between Europe and Asia, and surely China’s military forces will start to reach into the Atlantic.“


Do you not think the logic of this is quite baffling to say the least. If the US is being so generous with our security and your concerned they they may pivot away. Would you not be looking to invest more in your own security in NATO first so if they do pivot you can cover the gap they leave?

If the Chinese military forces are reaching the Atlantic why are we send the fleet to China, are you not wishing to challenge them in the Atlantic.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by tomuk »

I think the logic the CDS is trying to put forward as regards ops or forward basing EOS is twofold, one as he says it is an ongoing competition for minerals and resources part of our security is securing the access to these secondly if we share some of the load EOS there is less need for the US to pivot thereby retaining US mass in the European theatre.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

tomuk wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 19:00 I think the logic the CDS is trying to put forward as regards ops or forward basing EOS is twofold, one as he says it is an ongoing competition for minerals and resources part of our security is securing the access to these secondly if we share some of the load EOS there is less need for the US to pivot thereby retaining US mass in the European theatre.
Well we are letting the Chinese walk into resource rich nations across Africa the Caribbean and to an extent South America.

The US doesn’t need to maintain mass in Europe though if we in Europe do the heavy lifting. We aren’t a pacific power we are a European one.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 18:33 Do you not think the logic of this is quite baffling to say the least. If the US is being so generous with our security and your concerned they they may pivot away. Would you not be looking to invest more in your own security in NATO first so if they do pivot you can cover the gap they leave?

If the Chinese military forces are reaching the Atlantic why are we send the fleet to China, are you not wishing to challenge them in the Atlantic.
IMO current planning is coherent but inadequately funded and therefore incoherent.

Interoperability and procurement cooperation within the Anglosphere is to be welcomed but securing the North Atlantic must remain the overarching priority. Tilting anywhere whilst leaving gaps at home is beyond foolhardy but still it continues.

If HMG were really serious about securing the North Atlantic they would immediately provide funds to double the number of P8’s, T26s, MROSS and SSNs. That would be a statement of intent but clearly it won’t happen so that illustrates the level of REAL commitment.

The politicians will ask: why spend more money on the North Atlantic when you can leave it to NATO? The simple answer is because the gaps are still there. Filling those gaps should be the UK’s primary contribution to NATO apart from the CASD.

Tilting East is a political decision based on trade considerations, very little to do with actual containment however we really don’t know the full extent of AUKUS yet so the devil will be in the detail.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 21:07
SW1 wrote: 15 Dec 2022, 18:33 Do you not think the logic of this is quite baffling to say the least. If the US is being so generous with our security and your concerned they they may pivot away. Would you not be looking to invest more in your own security in NATO first so if they do pivot you can cover the gap they leave?

If the Chinese military forces are reaching the Atlantic why are we send the fleet to China, are you not wishing to challenge them in the Atlantic.
IMO current planning is coherent but inadequately funded and therefore incoherent.

Interoperability and procurement cooperation within the Anglosphere is to be welcomed but securing the North Atlantic must remain the overarching priority. Tilting anywhere whilst leaving gaps at home is beyond foolhardy but still it continues.

If HMG were really serious about securing the North Atlantic they would immediately provide funds to double the number of P8’s, T26s, MROSS and SSNs. That would be a statement of intent but clearly it won’t happen so that illustrates the level of REAL commitment.

The politicians will ask: why spend more money on the North Atlantic when you can leave it to NATO? The simple answer is because the gaps are still there. Filling those gaps should be the UK’s primary contribution to NATO apart from the CASD.

Tilting East is a political decision based on trade considerations, very little to do with actual containment however we really don’t know the full extent of AUKUS yet so the devil will be in the detail.
I agree with you in large parts. We’re I don’t is funding, it is a planning constraint it always is and always will be. If you don’t plan on that basis it isn’t a very good plan.

Sharing technology and information with our closest allies is sensible. Is the force structure idea of tilting east I simply don’t get as it doesn’t make sense.


The “tilit” politically had more to do with boris sound bites and how we were no longer in the EU political construct a brave new world.


SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Tempest414 »

For me NATO needs to get its self in order better going forward Something like

Finland , Sweden , Norway = 1st & 2nd Nordic battle groups
UK , Denmark and the 3 Baltic states = the 3rd Baltic battle group
Germany , Holland , Poland 1st & 2nd Centre battle groups
France , Spain , Italy 4th & 5th Southern battle groups

For its part the UK needs to increase the 3rd Division to have

1st Deep fires BCT
12th Armoured BCT
20th Armoured BCT
24th Armoured BCT
25 CS Engineer group
101 Op Sustainment brigade

The 1st division should have

4th light mechanised BCT
7th light mechanised BCT
51st light mechanised BCT
19th light Reserve brigade
11th Security force assistance brigade
8th Engineer brigade
102 Op sustainment brigade
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

A case to retain a balance we cannot predict the future.

https://mwi.usma.edu/chinas-irregular-a ... ure-fight/

Since early March, up to 220 boats from China’s maritime militia have been moored near Whitsun Reef in the South China Sea. The Philippine government has asked the Chinese government to direct the ships to leave its exclusive economic zone, but Beijing has denied that the ships are part of the militia, saying they are merely “fishing boats” sheltering from sea conditions. These actions fit a recent pattern of Chinese leaders turning to irregular warfare to achieve strategic aims in the South China Sea: China sends its maritime militia to a location in the South China Sea to reinforce Chinese sovereignty claims and then ratchets up control with little involvement by conventional forces.

The actions of the maritime militia are part of a body of evidence that Beijing has embraced irregular warfare as central to its military strategy. Despite this evidence, and a first-rate Irregular Warfare Annex to the US National Defense Strategy (NDS), many in the Pentagon believe that irregular warfare is a relic of the last two decades and that future war will be conventional. Before divesting too many irregular warfare capabilities, however, national security leaders should look closely at what Chinese officials’ words and China’s military actions say about how the People’s Liberation Army might actually fight a war. In fact, leaders should examine how US plans for distributed operations might not be reducing risk, but shifting risk from conventional to irregular threats.

In a recent CNA study, we found that in a future, large-scale conflict, Chinese forces will likely employ a modern and unique irregular warfare concept, focused on information and influence, tightly integrated with conventional capabilities. A return to great power competition does not portend a shift away from irregular warfare to conventional warfare, but rather an amalgamation of the two.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

Labour will end the pacific tilt.


User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Tempest414 »

I agree in the most part but still feel we will need 4 T-31's and 2 OPV's EoS these would for the most part work in the Indian Ocean and Gulf operating off the East of Africa

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Repulse »

Usual nonsense, name one thing that the I-P tilt has actually meant a significant draw on resources. From the navy we are talking 2 additional OPVs - having said that I think replacing with T31s is the wrong thing.

If people are looking to destroy the Carrier Strike Groups, then they are f-ing made. Feels 1981 all over again
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Feb 2023, 17:44 I agree in the most part but still feel we will need 4 T-31's and 2 OPV's EoS these would for the most part work in the Indian Ocean and Gulf operating off the East of Africa
Almost like a reconstitution of the East Indies station.. Base 4 type 31 out off Diego Garcia and allow them conduct martime security in the trade routes along east africa and the Arabian Sea up into the Red Sea.

We don’t need the opvs in that region we do need a tanker,

Post Reply