Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

Just getting the existing form of JEF up and running is a very hard and laborious process these days, especially for the NATO nations assigned to the lead role. Look how far and wide the Bundeswehr has to reach simply to get a single Panzer Grenadier Brigade fully manned and equipped.

It is not surprising the Dutch Amphibious Forces are now working closely with their German equivalents, considering how their previous NATO partner, 3 Command Brigade has almost been dissolved as a standing formation, together with the plans of the FCF.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:What I would say is more complex is the Eastern Med, Black Sea and Africa. The logical UK partner would have been France for this region under the CJEF.
As the recent announcement of Germany plus 4 others setting uo a rapid, out-of theatre reaction force separately indicates, JEF is v much northern Europe focussed. I agree with what the gone-quiet CJEF could do (that others might be unwilling to get involved in), but at least it having gone quiet helps with the alphabet soup.
- namely, I wasn't quite sure whether @LJ was referring to JEF, or:
" the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF): This NRF element – about 20,000 strong – includes a multinational land brigade of around 5,000" as its lead element

... or possibly both
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

J. Tattersall

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote:It is not surprising the Dutch Amphibious Forces are now working closely with their German equivalents, considering how their previous NATO partner, 3 Command Brigade has almost been dissolved as a standing formation, together with the plans of the FCF.
Remind me what is the amphibious capability of Germany, noting that their Seebataillon is primarily a force protection asset more akin to the RAF Regt?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

DefenceNews explains how the arrangement is similar to the Dutch 43rd Mech being part of 1st Panzer**
"The German sea battalion, which has about 800 servicemen and women, consists of a naval protection force, mine-clearance divers and boarding soldiers and is stationed in Northern Germany. According to a German Defense Ministry release, the naval forces will regularly exchange personnel and conduct joint exercises. Eventually, the Netherlands will also be the Bundeswehr's main partner for long-distance sea transport.

The countries' agreement includes a provision allowing the German Navy to use the new 205-meter Karel Doorman, which is designed for the strategic transport of personnel and material plus supplying other ships. Furthermore, the Karel Doorman is suited for landing operations with heavy equipment and helicopters."
- btw, the Belgian Marines will also be there (and they are not called marines, either

But as for the ** I inserted to the beginning:
The arrangement is also about avoiding duplication of lazy assets. Ever since the German force had difficulty getting out of Somalia, there have been renders for one (or two) joint support ships... now these won't be ordered

Just like with 1 Pz. The Dutch had retained a company's worth of MBT (after selling 100+ to Finland, for a mln each) just to be able to train with/ against them. Crimea happened, Germany bought a couple of hundred Leos back from RhMtl, with the refurb time being several years before any real boost in numbers. So they borrowed the Dutch tanks... those being part of the same division that needed boosting (incl. starting recruitment)
... lots of things do not get reported on these islands (remember: all of the A-stan conflict seemed to be happening in Helmand :) ). Like SF fixed wing aviation of Germany and France being based (and maintained) out of a joint base (usw. :o )
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote:will also involve tackling risks at source – in particular climate change and biodiversity loss.
a point picked up from the IR summary. I noted, in output goals, that the Forces are expected to cut their carbon footprint by 50% (forget now for what year that was set).

Once the Glasgow conference will have had some good coverage, how it seems for now can perhaps be set within a bigger picture:
It's 'funny' how in the West the fears of the wider population are egging on reluctant gvmnts as in
"thousands of demonstrators march in Rome to voice anger over governments' lack of action on climate change, while G20 leaders make mild pledges on carbon neutrality and coal financing".

Whereas in China, the fear of the people keeps the leadership dug in in an opposite position (despite lofty words and policies that have been floated in recent years).

=> will the 'West' take on the burden for all, or will a way be found so that opportunistic nations will not take advantage (and pull the rug from under everyone on the planet) :?:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

While, since the IR's results having been communicated, Boxer has become even more central to delivering the types of formations that the review talks about, there is still the timing & cost trade-off to be decided, within the protected wheeled platforms procurement. And we have not heard much news about it.

The indicated cost ratio between the Boxer and MRVP prgrms has been that for every Boxer, three of the MRVP could be got. Clearly the final quantity of vehicles for both MRVP Packages will have some impact on this ratio, but let's go with the indicated 1,050 vehicles with 800 cheaper/ lighter version and 250 for Package 2, be it the 4-wheel alternative (BM) or the 6-wheel Eagle.

Obviously there is great pressure to up both the quantity and the number of versions in Boxer deliveries, but output rate (UK production ramping up) is a constraint... and getting 3 for 1 should be quite a temptation to start to (finally) move the MVRP ahead and into a higher gear :?:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:While, since the IR's results having been communicated, Boxer has become even more central to delivering the types of formations that the review talks about, there is still the timing & cost trade-off to be decided, within the protected wheeled platforms procurement. And we have not heard much news about it.

The indicated cost ratio between the Boxer and MRVP prgrms has been that for every Boxer, three of the MRVP could be got. Clearly the final quantity of vehicles for both MRVP Packages will have some impact on this ratio, but let's go with the indicated 1,050 vehicles with 800 cheaper/ lighter version and 250 for Package 2, be it the 4-wheel alternative (BM) or the 6-wheel Eagle.

Obviously there is great pressure to up both the quantity and the number of versions in Boxer deliveries, but output rate (UK production ramping up) is a constraint... and getting 3 for 1 should be quite a temptation to start to (finally) move the MVRP ahead and into a higher gear :?:
There’s rumours the MVRP maybe dead as a door nail in its previous guise wonder if we’ll hear more when the army produces its plans.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

Same old story, a Programme is announced with much fanfare. It remains high profile for a couple of years and then seen to start becoming quieter and quieter as the Top Brass start have new thoughts on where they want to be ten years from then and eventually the original programme ia quietly binned and a new one is announced again with great fanfare. In the meantime the Army gets nothing new to actually use and has to continue to operate platforms that are rapidly becoming unfit for purpose, that being fighting a high intensity conflict against a Peer Opponenet.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

let's go with the indicated 1,050 vehicles with 800 cheaper/ lighter version and 250 for Package 2, be it the 4-wheel alternative (BM) or the 6-wheel Eagle.
SW1 wrote: rumours the MVRP maybe dead as a door nail in its previous guise
if the rumour is correct, then we don't have to bother about figuring out the mix within the indicated 1000 or so vehicles
- as the from-scratch, lighter one will cost the same 8-) as the 6-wheel Eagle

Boxer will also become relatively cheaper (from the one for three formula, guesstimated from things as they stand... or stood?)
- which then will serve to prove the wisdom of going (resuming :roll: ) with Boxer
- BUT will end up producing, again, a smaller fleet total (while the tracked fleets shrink even faster)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Here is another thought. If our elected finest can’t (don’t want to) afford the equipment that (THE ARMY) needs, then all they need to do is cut the number of troops to match the level of equipment that they are willing to pay for !

The culpability of those who imperil our defence is truly beyond belief. :mrgreen:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

The MRV(P) Phase 1 should have been a very simple acquisition. The Contractor had even done most of the work to make the JLTV UK spec, ready for Bowman etc. Yet the MoD seems to have been able to C@£k block itself by not knowing what it really wants or to spend the money it has to actually buy something rather than keep a multitude of programmes in limbo in the Assessment and Developmental stages.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Nothing is ever simple. At least the battle lines for APS (OTS, meaning already integrated in the AFV design) have been drawn for the European market:
"The new Germany-based venture, dubbed EuroTrophy, is charged with finding new takers for the defensive technology and leading any vehicle-integration efforts for future customers. The company is expected to be operational by the end of the year, pending regulatory approval.

In KMW, Rafael is getting the support of one-half of Germany’s venture behind the Leopard 2, the tank of choice by several European nations. The other company in that effort, Rheinmetall, is marketing its own system, dubbed StrikeShield, that will see an initial deployment on Rheinmetall’s Lynx vehicles sold to Hungary.

General Dynamics European Land Systems, the other partner in the EuroTrophy company, makes the ASCOD vehicle, variants of which are used in Spain, Austria and the U.K."
- defencenews, from 3 days ago
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

zanahoria
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:21
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by zanahoria »

Make of this what you will:


bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by bobp »

Make of this what you will:

No positive comment I am afraid.

zanahoria
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:21
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by zanahoria »

I guess that the PM actually bothering to turn up could be construed as positive.

The rest emphasises to me that the chaos comes from the top.

Not sure if defence of the realm is even on his radar.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

There is a growing gap between fantasy and fact.

Online
G White
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 03 Jun 2019, 11:06
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by G White »

zanahoria wrote: 19 Nov 2021, 12:53 I guess that the PM actually bothering to turn up could be construed as positive.
I believe from other reports it was a more general Q & A so would read anything defence related in to his presence at all!

Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Scotland

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Rentaghost »

Wasn't Project Embankment meant to be reporting around now?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

Rentaghost wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 11:04 Wasn't Project Embankment meant to be reporting around now?
Yeah was to be by end of “summer” I think

Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Scotland

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Rentaghost »

SW1 wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 11:27
Rentaghost wrote: 23 Nov 2021, 11:04 Wasn't Project Embankment meant to be reporting around now?
Yeah was to be by end of “summer” I think
... and then the autumn, which we are rapidly approaching the end of. I wonder if the Army is struggling to find a usable doctrine out of the incoherent bits and pieces they have left over from the defence review....

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

They are once again trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole with regards to the level or resources verses the shape of the Army laid out in the command paper. At present the Challenger 3 and Boxer are the only bright spots in its equipment plan, and there are more capability holes in said plan than a Swiss cheese. I fear we are going to see more and more programmes pushed further down the road that the Army need now with more and more spent on programmes that are related to immature capabilities that may or may not bear fruit but not until the mid 2030s at the soonest. The argument the Army needs to make is for more resources for the short and medium term to deal with replacing the bow wave of obsolete platforms that makes up the majority of the Army's AFV fleet. It also needs to gain improved or new capabilities in planned programmes like Boxer covering things like Air Defence, Precision fires and so on. And we must not forget the MRV(P) that will be the core of the planned Light BCTs as well as equipping the new Ranger Regiment and parts of 16AA. The list goes on and on.

The Army is still a hollow shell and with out these new capabilities and platforms it will remain so. It is at a critical mass and the to say unmanned Ground Systems will make up for the low personnel levels is pie in the sky for at least a decade and most likely longer. The type of Unmanned Ground Vehicles often taunted by the powers that be are not going to be cheap and may cost the same if not more than their manned equivalents, and will therefore be far from expendable. The level of autonomy required for such platforms is far greater than that required for air or sea based unmanned platforms, and that equates to growing cost. However in the end we may have platforms that can match their manned equivalent but not surpass them. You also cannot put an unmanned platforms through the selection procedure for SF, and the latter are going to have a harder and harder time finding enough personnel as the pool they have to choose from is getting smaller and smaller.

Finally the idea of the Ranger Regiment mentoring allies and also working with them in combat operations is a problematic issue. We have just spent over a decade in Afghanistan trying to do exactly that after the main role of our troops there changed. That didn't work out too well in the end regardless of the hard work by our brave Service Personnel and £Bns spent did it. Why will the Ranger Regiment be any better. TO do so it must teach allies how to fight at their level not that of the British Army. But is this a lesson that the Army has adopted? I do not think so but it is early days so we shall see.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Lord Jim wrote: 24 Nov 2021, 02:42The argument the Army needs to make is for more resources for the short and medium term to deal with replacing the bow wave of obsolete platforms that makes up the majority of the Army's AFV fleet.
The depressing thing is that this is likely the very same reason the army had its pre-IR homework rejected twice - because it was an incoherent mess of panic and hopium.

Two years later and nothing seems to have changed. They need to get a grip, or IR25 will continue to see resources slide away from the army to the other services.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

I believe the paper on the future of the Army is imminent and one thing in it seems to be the setting up of a permanent armoured training area in Oman. How this may affect BATUS is unknown, but the idea seems to be to have a Battle Group near the Gulf permanently, that acts as a Training Unit but can also deploy. This is what I have heard today in the media.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by bobp »

BATUS will be run down and the Armour and other vehicles transferred closer to home and Oman.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... eopolitics

And, when the guns finally fall silent in Ukraine, it means making sure Kyiv has the resources it needs to maintain security, deter further attacks, and rebuild. That’s why we are working on our joint commission with Poland to ensure Ukraine is equipped with NATO-standard weapons. And it’s why we are determined to work with the US, with the EU and other allies on a new Marshall Plan for the country.

Ukraine deserves nothing less than a landmark international effort to rebuild their towns and cities, regenerate their industries, and secure their freedom for the long term.

We are doubling down. We will keep going further and faster to push Russia out of the whole of Ukraine.

And this has to be a catalyst for wider change. We must also apply this tough stance to the threats that are emerging beyond Ukraine.

Our new approach is based on 3 areas: military strength, economic security and deeper global alliances.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, geopolitics is back.

After the Cold War we all thought that peace, stability and prosperity would spread inexorably around the globe. We thought that we’d learned the lessons of history and that the march of progress would continue unchallenged.

We were wrong. But this is no counsel of despair.

In the face of rising aggression we do have the power to act, and we need to act now. We must be assertive. Aggressors are looking at what has happened in Ukraine. We need to make sure that they get the right message.

Together we have tremendous strength. Let’s use it to forge a better, more secure world and a stronger global economy. This will take the energies of all the people in this room and beyond. It will be hard. But we have to step up and take responsibility.

The aggressors are prepared to be bold – we must be bolder. That is how we will ensure that Ukraine’s sovereignty is restored. That is how we will ensure that aggression and coercion fail. That is how, across the globe, we will win this new era for peace, security and prosperity.

Post Reply