General UK Defence Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

When did Intelligence budgets start propping up the 2%?

Happened before, the "officially found out" date was:


On the 21st of April 2016 the Commons defence comittee found that the 2% defence spending target was only met through "creative accounting". To summarise the report, the NATO target was only just met by including things such as war pensions and intelligence gathering which were previously maintained under other budgets. The reports also states that the only way the MOD can refute these claims is by outlining, clearly and unambiguously, what the new inclusions are and from which department were they previously funded.

[Lord Jim]

Things may turn out that the Government weaves and dodges what actually makes up the 2% target until the promised time runs out and then we are going to see stagnation or cuts. Every time I think about all this I keep thinking we are still (for the moment) part of the G7 so where does all the money go? I think the Army is really going to suffer and will not see half of its aspiration met and will no longer be a cohesive force on any medium to large scale. In future I am starting to thing that one two or even one of our armed services will be kept fully relevant, with the correct and up to date equipment and the size and capacity to actually influence future conflicts in a meaningful way. Like all department, the MoD is being made to do more with less and less, but there is no more fat in the departments and to retain some capabilities others are going to have to be permanently cut. The future forces the UK could generate could, after scraping the barrel, end up as;

Royal Navy: 1 Carrier Group.
Royal Air force: 2x Fast Jet Squadron.
Army: 1x Brigade.

I may be being too pessimistic but other more politically sensitive departments are all crying gout for more funds and will continue to do so. Defence is going to be more and more vulnerable to reductions, unless there is a major conventional threat to the UK or its dependencies and unfortunately NATO will not be a good enough reason unless the other members also start spending at least 2% which isn't going to happen.

So rather than look at what the Armed Forces are going to gain over the next decade or so, and because the much vaunted 10 year equipment plan will not deliver what was thought due to cost increases, what will the UK lose by 2025, especially if CASD is still going to come out of the core budget.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Royal Navy: 1 Carrier Group.
Royal Air force: 2x Fast Jet Squadron.
Army: 1x Brigade.

A nicely IDF-type, integrated (but expeditonary) force there:
- the 2 sqdrns do QRA (North and South) in peace time, and get loaded onto the at-the-ready carrier when that changes (leaving USAFE to look after our airspace)
- the bde is called from the various royal castles and can also be bundled onto ships (assuming the Points have not been done away with) - and the amph. ready cdo bn and the company-sized ready air assault group nicely round off the bde, in the main consisting of the various Guards units (including the Blues for armoured recce)

The outsourced SAR contract will have been taken back in-house, for the Junglies pilots to maintain qualifications by racking up enough flying hours, including at sea and in mountain conditions. Counting the fish , after deciding that they constitute no military threat, will have been outsourced to the Border Force, together with the Rivers, and...

[marktigger]

I wouldn't be to pessimistic the army may need to deploy much closer to home soon though how well Mastiff will do on the streets of belfast is anyones guess. Trump will hold UK feet to the fire over defence interesting the reaction to how low canada's defence and aid budget has been.
I would say Health & social care could get revised funding. But there are savings out there in other departments I would suggest the way the Northern Ireland budget is spent could do with allot more scrunity

[ArmChairCivvy]

interesting the reaction to how low canada's defence and aid budget has been.

??

[marktigger]

interesting the reaction to how low canada's defence and aid budget has been.

??

exactly no reaction at all!

[ArmChairCivvy]

Money is not the only measure:

"NORAD was formalized. The agreement included 11 principles governing the organization and operation of NORAD and called for a renewal of the agreement in 10 years.
The first renewal of the agreement came in March 1968. The NORAD Agreement has been reviewed, revised, renewed or extended several times since then: May 1973; May 1975; May 1980; March 1981 (when the name was changed to “North American Aerospace Defense Command”); March 1986; April 1991; March 1996; June 2000; and May 2006.
The March 1996 renewal redefined NORAD’s missions as aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. The new agreement included a consultative mechanism for issues concerning aerospace defense cooperation and, a provision for the review and management of environmental practices related to NORAD operations. As part of its aerospace control mission, NORAD also assists civil authorities in the detection and monitoring of aircraft suspected of illegal drug trafficking.
The May 2006 renewal added a maritime warning mission to the command's existing missions.
The on-going adaptation of NORAD’s mission and capabilities to meet the challenges posed by ever-changing threats testifies to the strength of the NORAD Agreement and the close cooperation between Canada and the United States."

[RetroSicotte]

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/201 ... Capability

Many many people in the recent debate highlight real issues, problems and mistakes.

Earl Howe dismisses them all, ignores them all and refuses to answer anything.

Thanks to Gabe for me noticing it on his twitter.

[whitelancer]

Just watched a speech by Julian Lewis MP, the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, on the parliament channel, about the future of the armed forces. Talked a lot of sense unlike most Politian's! In particular he talked of the lack of any Grand Strategy within Government. Politian's only seem to do strategy when it comes to elections!

[ArmChairCivvy]

Further from Hansard (above):


Lord Robertson of Port Ellen

Share this contribution (not going to tweet, but will share here, on the forum)
"...there is a long-standing belief that no plan survives the first engagement with the enemy. Since the SDSR was published last year, we have had the Brexit referendum, with profound implications for the direction of British defence policy.

Secondly, Donald Trump has been elected as President of the United States of America, with all the statements that he has made about NATO undermining, in many ways, a lot of the solidarity that is there. So there is a genuine reason for looking at SDSR 2015, if only to
- look at the activities of President Putin now that he is a major player in the Middle East.
[and...]
- What will be the cost of the devaluation on the defence budget?"

Good man! (or, Noble Lord!):

Mid-term review for the Strategic review?
by ArmChairCivvy » 08 May 2016, 16:05 » in General Discussion
Replies: 2

[whitelancer]

there is a long-standing belief that no plan survives the first engagement with the enemy.

Carl von Clausewitz introduced us to the concept of friction in war. In truth friction is part of everyday life, we all experience it, War simply exaggerates its effects. While steps can be taken to reduce friction and to mitigate its effects when it occurs (The rule of the Ps plays it part in this), it can never be entirely eliminated in life in general or War in particular.
Consequently I would go further and state that:
No plan suvives contact with reality.
Therefore plans require constant adjustments many will be minor, however some will be major. As plans are developed in order to execute our strategy such major changes may result in them no longer being able to perform that role, it will then be time to produce a completely new plan. If however we cannot produce a viable plan, it will then be time to develop a new Strategy.
As Harold Macmillan is often quoted as saying in response to a question about what would throw the Government of course "Events, dear boy, events." In other words friction. Well their have been plenty of events since the 2015 SDSR , so do we need a change to the plan, certainly. Do we need a completely new plan, probable. Assuming of course we have a strategy that is anything other than keeping as close to the US as possible and supporting NATO. The real question is: Do we need a new Strategy?

[ArmChairCivvy]

A good post; my twice as long response disappeared into the ether... so let us see how the discussion evolves from here

[whitelancer]

A good post; my twice as long response disappeared into the ether... so let us see how the discussion evolves from here

Thanks. Frankly I wont hold my breath.
Sorry about your reply.I know how you feel, earlier I'd nearly completed a long post in the future escort thread when it suddenly disappeared no idea what I did to make it do that. Trying to generate the enthusiasm to write it again.

[cky7]

Following their revelations about the trident test failure the times also had an article about a paper that's just been published by the centre for historical analysis and conflict research that was backed by rusi (i think) that Russia could destroy the army in an afternoon and that defence cuts have anhilated our ability to deliver and sustain credible defence against a peer threat in the few peer on peer situations we could realistically face.

Personally I'd like to read the report as am very sceptical of journalists summaries but with the way things are looking at present it wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure the mod will reassure us with the 178 billion equipment plan and rising defence budget. At least the mod's ability to spin and bullshit is worldbeating! Was too depressed to look into it I. Detail but anyone interested article is here - http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shrun ... -3jlbwgq3t

[dmereifield]

Hasn't that been the case since SDSR2015? A real terms increase of 0.5% per year

The MoD are very careful to talk about an increase in the Defence budget and not spending on defence.

The two are very different things. The budget has increased because a number of items not directly related to spending on actually defending the UK, have been transferred into the MoD's budget in order to meet the 2% target.

Actual spending on defending the country has gone down and will continue to go down as evidenced by the massive reductions in the size of the forces and the sizes of their fleets of active aircraft, ships & vehicles.

This confidence trick behavior (shyster) is a very notable characteristic of UK governments.

Sorry to be off topic.

Yes, I just meant that they had announced the 0.5% annual increase previously so that they could brag about a growing defence budget, along with the £178 billion line.... Although according to the following, we need a material increase in the budget just to stand still...let alone grow...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01 ... -spending/

If they don't open the purse strings in the March budget I'll lose the plot. The Chancellor has just found a few extra Bob down the back of the sofa due to better growth in 2016 than forecast, and elevated forecasts for 2017 compared to those of the Autumn statement...so he can do it and stick to his deficit targets. What with Brexit and wanting to demonstrate our commitment to Nato, now is the time to fund defence properly....

[Lord Jim]

Unfortunately there are too many other politically sensitive priorities in front of defence for there to be any credible increase in defence spending. IF the MoD can keep what it has already planned for and purchase the kit planned in the stated quantities they will be doing well. £178Bn is a nice number but a lot can change in 10 years including increased costs. How well have the planners accounted for that I wonder?

[ArmChairCivvy]

"The NAO said: “Approximately £18.6billion of the Plan is denominated in US dollars and £2.6 billion in euros over 10 years. This illustrates the significant risk to affordability currently faced by the Department.”

Sir Amyas Morse, the auditor general, said: “The affordability of the equipment plan is at greater risk than at any time since its inception.

“It is worrying to see that the costs of the new commitments arising from the review considerably exceed the net increase in funding for the plan."

Now, just announcing the intention to leave gave the Pound shivers; when it becomes a fact (with the terms known) another 20-30% drop?
- good for manufacturing (which we have little of... left); not so good otherwise

So, from the beginning of the 90s, we have had one of the big drops (3 in total, average one a decade... another one, soon, and the £ under parity to the $?)
- will any of the Public School boys dominating the Parliamentary debates still be laughing and joking? The rest of the population will, for sure, know that they are poorer

[dmereifield]

"The NAO said: “Approximately £18.6billion of the Plan is denominated in US dollars and £2.6 billion in euros over 10 years. This illustrates the significant risk to affordability currently faced by the Department.”

Sir Amyas Morse, the auditor general, said: “The affordability of the equipment plan is at greater risk than at any time since its inception.

“It is worrying to see that the costs of the new commitments arising from the review considerably exceed the net increase in funding for the plan."

Now, just announcing the intention to leave gave the Pound shivers; when it becomes a fact (with the terms known) another 20-30% drop?
- good for manufacturing (which we have little of... left); not so good otherwise

It's unlikely to drop another 20-30%. When the markets priced in leaving the single market it dropped to $1.20. It won't drop too much below that (prob $1.10-1.15) in the case of leaving single market and no FTA. That would be relatively short lived, it would start to strengthen as the FTAs start rolling in. Most of those that we have via the EU will be grandfathered through and Australia, US etc would sign deals in relatively fast timeframes. Not ideal, but manageable.
What's more likely to happen is strengthening of the £ when the outcome is confirmed as an UK-EU FTA.

[ArmChairCivvy]

What's more likely to happen is strengthening of the £ when the outcome is confirmed as an UK-EU FTA.

ahh... the defence budget (for the kit) is safe then?
- one of the fundamental principles of FX hedging is time matching... the further out you go, transactionally, the more expensive it will become

[dmereifield]

What's more likely to happen is strengthening of the £ when the outcome is confirmed as an UK-EU FTA.

ahh... the defence budget (for the kit) is safe then?
- one of the fundamental principles of FX hedging is time matching... the further out you go, transactionally, the more expensive it will become

Evidently not, which is why we need the Chancellor to loosen the purse strings

[bobp]

So in order to pay for their shiny new pieces of needed equipment they have to make cuts elsewhere to pay for them. And the exchange rate business has gobbled up the contingency fund so we are skint unless Hammond can magically get money out of thin air. But still they pour money into the Foreign Aid Pot.

[LordJim]

Yep the MoD needs to circle the waggons, lock up its wives and daughters and try bloody hard to hold onto what it has got or planned to get between now and 2020. After that all bets are off, we are no longer going to intervene except when the UK is threatened directly or our NATIONAL interests are directly threatened, so we should pull out of the middle east now.

[bobp]

when the UK is threatened directly or our NATIONAL interests are directly threatened

But you could argue that a terrorist attack on UK soil or even an attempted plot was a threat.

[ArmChairCivvy]

on UK soil

The carnage in Tunisia does not count?

I think protecting citizens, property and wider interests are a quite tightly made parcel, and giving a carte blanche on any part of it
... the military term for surrender, previously written as 'charte blanche'.

[bobp]

The carnage in Tunisia does not count?

You are right I wasn't thinking outside the box. Its due to the war on terror that we are engaging them in various parts of the world. I do believe though that we made mistakes in the past, and we are now learning them.