Mid-term review for the Strategic review?

[necessary evil]

I think you´re suggesting that I´m a Russian internet propagandist, which I think may qualify you as paranoid. I don´t mind debating people, but I don´t feel comfortable debating paranoid people.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I don´t mind debating people, but I don´t feel comfortable debating paranoid people.

You got in in one; however, I was asking about your pay-grade

Welcome. But do feel free to mess up the other contributers' time.

[necessary evil]

Yep, I really think I did.

[ArmChairCivvy]

was asking about your pay-grade

Will be asking all the next ones coming onboard; the one that can get any traction will get a Colonel level back-up, to squeeze out anything useful... it has, so far, been a poor line up

[Defiance]

Hasn't the suspected horse been flogged enough?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yes, back to news about the "stealth review"... meaning that it has gone eerily quiet (well, it does declare that in the label, stealth...)

[necessary evil]

I just didn´t know what to say to someone who believes that a.) Russian internet propagandists are going on forums like this to INFLUENCE DEFENCE POLICY (please give me one example of when anything said on one of these forums has influenced defence policy), and b.) that a Russian internet propagandist would decide to pretend to be based in Spain to be more credible on a British military forum.

If anyone wants to have an intelligent, logical discussion then I would be very happy to join in.

[LordJim]

If the Treasury has its way, any mid-term review will be kept as far out of the public domain as possible. They and the rest of the Government know the 2015 SDSR is already falling apart and there is a real funding shortfall. They don't want to have to answer awkward questions in the public spot light and have to publically either commit more money or amend the plans downwards.

Hopefully the Service Chiefs will do what they seem to have a habit of doing lately and start leaking info on which of the "Pet" projects they believe is under threat so we get to see the mini-SDSR through a back door so to speak.

[ArmChairCivvy]

awkward questions in the public spot light [...] amend the plans downwards.

I expect the following spin: Give it to October (if the media does not kick the kitchen door wide open; the carrier show will keep them busy to the end of summer)
- then declare victory over ISIS; that Typhoon has proved itself, accelerate the Tornado rundown (to pay for and man those two extra Typhoon sqdrns), halve the Protector order (as surplus to requirement)
- that's only the RAF, the big question mark is the army
- with the navy, they can make virtue out of necessity and solve the manning crisis by applying the cheese slicer approach to fleets where one can claim any "duplication": Albions/ Bays, the eldest T23s (also save on the LEP'ping of them)... not much to go by, though

The EP is bursting in its seams for three main reasons
- the SDSR additions (not only new, but keeping old)
- hence there are un-budgeted for items in the support bill
- and of course the Brexit FX outcome (that made all of us poorer, overnight. Last time around the solution was to cut "everything" East of Suez)

[dmereifield]

IF the political will is there to provide additional resources, the Brexit vote and our new "global Britain" provides the cover, without having to take responsibility for underfunding SDSR2015....

[LordJim]

I think the Army is going to find that the Divisional level deployment capability will become a reality only in the PR pamphlets with actually planning in the future being for a single, possible reinforced Brigade. This will lead to a general reduction in new equipment orders and a reduction in support units and Light role infantry formations especially TA and Reserves, these being partially used to bring needed units/formations up to strength. To avoid bad PR many units will be like those of the German Army in 1944/45, name only, with a limited cadre. There will probably some spin regarding increasing the capabilities of our SF again and maybe doubling the support units to two, with the second being one to the RM Cmdo, providing a maritime supplement to the existing airborne. I can see the ACC being concentrated at one site and numerous bases being closed as the force size is decreased through slight of hand. Talk of "Super" garrisons will probably emerge.

Again to provide good PR the first F-35 squadron might be accelerates as will the formation of the two Tranche 1 QRA Typhoon squadrons but Tornado will go within 12 months. They may try to bring the A400 up to spec for SF ops and allow the Hercules to go far sooner and the number of Voyagers on permanent duty with the RAF could also be reduced.

CASD replacement will probably slip to save annual expenditure, but again this will be done without actually appearing to be happening. Long lead item contracts will still be announced etc. The T-26 programme will produce platforms that have the systems in place but no actually weapons etc. will be ordered except those for trials. The same will happen with the P-8, very limited ordonnance etc. except for trails but in the latter's case much PR will be made of the deliveries, papering over capability shortfalls, just like with the QE recently.

[ArmChairCivvy]

That is a good list of tendencies that have been observable; a couple of comments:

TA and Reserves, these being partially used to bring needed units/formations up to strength

This would be a good result, as it would enhance the mobilisation for a "national emergency" which capacity has been hollowed out by the drift towards a two-tier army (the first tier being equipped for enduring ops and rotation of units "through" the same kit, already in-situ).

Yes, how do you put a division together, when
- both the heavy (AI is not that heavy!) has to generate one bde in readiness out of two in total, and the same will go for the medium (2 of "Strike")
- the saving grace has been the 16X but it has been hollowed of the infantry component and the AAC Rgmnts have been clearly parcelled out for support of other (main) formations
... one could always recreate a DAG out of the 1st Arty Bde

CASD replacement will probably slip to save annual expenditure, but again this will be done without actually appearing to be happening.

- stretching it any further (the SSN recoring has already added 50+ months to the schedules) could see the same sort of need coming up within the SSNB fleet... and the option of having just 3 has been seen as "bad" since the 60's)

[necessary evil]

As I was trying to suggest before, we should consider what the army´s brigades are for. If they are for rapid reaction, they need to actually be able to get to the most likely (or most important) theatre (the Baltic States) very quickly, and to be able to deter/fight once they get there. If they are to be at lower readiness, they need to have more mass and more firepower. At the moment, the brigades seem to be more based around the latter CONOPS. I think the first CONOPS is more of a deterrent, so I think long-term we should be working towards that. I do not see much progress being made in that direction during this Parliament however.

[dmereifield]

They may try to bring the A400 up to spec for SF ops and allow the Hercules to go far sooner....

As I understand it we have 16 of 22 A400 delivered, and a fleet of 20+ Hercules(?). Cutting the Hercules fleet would therefore seem like a substantial loss....but, it might be an opportunity to grease the wheels in the Brexit negotiations if we were to take some of the excess A400 airframes off of Germany (and France?) that they are trying to offload....

[LordJim]

IF they can get flight clearances for the A400 to do all the jobs it is supposed to, picking up the extra airframes would actually be a great benefit to the UK's airlift capability. Then all we need to do is say sod off to Air Refueling ltd and equip 6-8 to refuel rotary assets. I wonder if anyone has thought of putting a refueling probe on an Apache?!

[ArmChairCivvy]

excess A400 airframes off of Germany (and France?) that they are trying to offload..

I saw a blog post where the NATO pool was having an insane number of A400Ms, in addition to the a/c they already have, but as there was no source quoted I did not pay much attention
,,, would be an idea, though

[Zealot]

I wonder if anyone has thought of putting a refueling probe on an Apache?!

India seems to be exploring that possibility; http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories ... bility.htm

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yeah, but only for the IAF Apaches. The army had to get their own (6) and as they are building it ground up, the price tag ($660m) for once tells us what they really cost.

[necessary evil]

Seems like Gabrielle basically agrees with me: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/

I guess he must be a Russian propagandist masquerading as an Italian blogger on British defence issues.

[LordJim]

I must agree, Gabrielle is pretty much spot on with his summation of the state of the UKs defence. However I am one of those who think that the Army's priority should be the MIV followed by the MRV(P), with Warrior upgrade and support platform programme being cancelled and the Ajax contract re0rganised to reduce the number of Recce variant purchased, but additional quantities of other variants purchased instead. Most importantly the MIV needs to be bought in both sufficient quantities and variants to make the two Mechanised/Strike Brigades effective. If it were possible I would pull the plug on the whole Ajax programme as well.

[necessary evil]

I half agree. I think, if we are going to have Strike Brigades, then rather than upgun the Challengers, we should order 100-200 direct fire variants of either Ajax or the MIV, and at least some anti-tank capability on the rest of the MIVs. If its just going to be Ajax plus basic MIV, I think it´s better to keep the brigades as they are. I think this should prove the cheapest option too, since the Challenger upgrade will probably be just a modernization of existing systems.

I think the best we can hope for is that programmes such as the Strike Brigades/MIV are delayed until the next Parliament, rather than cancelled. I think the UK should get a small fleet of Ospreys if at all possible, since it ticks so many boxes, but I know there is next to no chance of that happening this Parliament. The best we can hope for is that all the areas that Gabrielle listed are preserved to some degree, allowing them to be expanded again in the future.

[Frenchie]

Sorry LordJim but I do not agree with you, as long as the money is missing and the Strike Brigades program is blurry, I think it will be necessary to reinforce what is vital.
I think that the Strike Brigades should be removed, nobody can say what they are going to serve or their equipment.
I delete MIV and Warrior upgrade.
I would like to see two Heavy Brigades formed with four Challenger regiments, six armoured infantry battalions, composed of Ajax with turret, around 500 or 600 vehicles, and appropriate versions like APC, engineering, command post, observation artillery, ambulance, anti-tank missile carrier under armour, supply, repair, recovery, CBRN, mortar carrier 120mm.
For reconnaissance vehicles, I would buy a vehicle on a shelf, more discreet than a vehicle of 38 tonnes.

[dmereifield]

Is there any chance the strike brigades can be ditched in the mini review? Or are there too many people in the MoD/Army with too much invested in it?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Is there any chance the strike brigades can be ditched in the mini review?

You need to pop over and see what Gaby says

[dmereifield]

Is there any chance the strike brigades can be ditched in the mini review?

You need to pop over and see what Gaby says

Indeed, that's why I ask. To me (with no first hand experience of the matter), he makes convincing arguments for dropping them - which is why I'm asking if it is at all politically possible to drop them, or more likely, modify the general principle in such a way as to effectively change course without embarrassment.....