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 »

Sounds more like a rebranding of DE&S possibly with even more industrial involvement.

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:to increase equipment availability and readiness
Well, for that all of these (aspects) involved:
- Logistics support is the activity to sustain forces by providing materiel; moving personnel and materiel; and providing logistics support services.
- Engineering support ensures that performance and safety margins are known and managed.
- Equipment support, a significant subset of engineering support, is the management of the material state of the equipment through maintenance, repair, replacement and control of components crucial to its performance.

Support advantage is described by Defence Support as
" battle-winning effect through the superior provision of support functions compared to that of the enemy"
- from that point of view even the Directorate for Overseas Bases (under the Strat Command) would be part of this Support Advantage
= springboards, with all the things necessary to support fowrd-deployed foramtions in their region in place (or put in place, in advance)
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 »

A RUSI article from 27 Nov, 2019 states
"strategic thinking about the High North and the Baltics still needs joining-up. In September 2018, the then-Secretary of State for Defence, Gavin Williamson announced that Britain was to produce a new strategy paper that would ‘put the Arctic and High North central to the security of the United Kingdom’. When it is eventually published (probably, it is hoped, at some point in 2020)"
- underline added

Quite understandably that effort may have been merged into the work for the IR.

However, not much survived into the resulting text :!:
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 »

Will just have to munch on the published stuff as the implementation 'papers' have been delayed.

Where will we be falling short? The Boxer-Ajax-Ch3 total (stretched out over a v long time) about 1200 pieces (about a third as many tanks and IFVs falling off altogether).
- counter: increase reach, to be able to fight in depth. Right approach, but again the time scales are roughly similar. What are we waiting for? ERCA?

Fast jets (and strategic airlift) going down in numbers
- counter: carrier strike will have the planes where they will count most
- counter2: more forward presence - less need for an 'emergency' airbridge (?)

Surface fleet numbers are maintained, but
- ASW capable units are falling off faster than replacements for them coming in
- will 7 SSNs and 9 Poseidons plug the gap??
- forward presence, here too, being emphasized in ship orders (MTF having become a more credible force than up until now)

Summa summarum: the £24 bn extra will keep carriers and deterrent 'safe' while safeguarding the elongated (10 yr) time scale for transformation of just about everything else, some at a bare minimum, though - like 3 AEW a/c that can maintain one circuit
... will find a tighter-spaced comb and find some things positive :)
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 »

Fastjet numbers going dwn it is hoped that the resilience will be meet with unmanned loyal wing. It just means less fast jets will be deployed to less locations of which the carrier will be one.

The reduction in strategic transports mean that less deployments can be supported simultaneously and at lower scale.

Despite the rhetoric the primary threat has been decided is Russia and the asw and army are being largely pointed to Europe and the North Atlantic.

I suppose we need to look at how Russia and indeed China has positioned there posture. over the past years they have constructed along there borders an air defence system and surface to surface missile systems that they hope makes the cost of attempting to come into there countries so high that we will not countenance such an action. They have then used overseas spending, espionage, disinformation, proxy’s to destabilise influence fragment specific areas/countries to align with there Vision (the grey zone?)

And in Russia’s case with there advancement in the sub surface ballistic missile tech from the end of the Cold War were there ssbns can now standoff from and attack there targets marks an important shift they no longer need to move into the North Atlantic but can remain high up under the ice much closer to home within there defence bubble that we can only really get to with our own submarines.

With nato being a defensive alliance we could see how we can counter in a similar way, with longer range missile and defence systems along the nato border. So perhaps fwd deployed reconnaissance forces along the nato border with rapid deployment of missile forces from the UK maybe what is planned it’s hard to tell at present

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:The reduction in strategic transports mean that less deployments can be supported simultaneously and at lower scale.

Despite the rhetoric the primary threat has been decided is Russia and the asw and army are being largely pointed to Europe and the North Atlantic.
I agree with that underlying current (and for that reason lifted the scant number of ASW assets to the fore).
SW1 wrote: So perhaps fwd deployed reconnaissance forces along the nato border with rapid deployment of missile forces from the UK maybe what is planned it’s hard to tell at present
That would be a great way to go.
If you take the HETs discussion (renewal, incl. scaling is imminent), we can may be move a heavy BCT quickly.
- if we have the recce part of the BCT there, with deep strike assets movable easier than the whole of the Heavy BCT (one of the two), then we will have reasonable deployment, at a reasonable speed.
- though discounting infantry (which is something one should never do) we will end with 3 recce rgmnts screening for 3 with heavy/ at reach assets (the MBTs and the MLRS)
... so that force would not be a spearhead, but it would be useful for 'blunting' the head in the Opfor spear, while the other NATO formations hold the ground elsewhere and prepare for counter-manoeuvre. Or is this scenario ' British exceptionalism'?
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:
SW1 wrote:The reduction in strategic transports mean that less deployments can be supported simultaneously and at lower scale.

Despite the rhetoric the primary threat has been decided is Russia and the asw and army are being largely pointed to Europe and the North Atlantic.
I agree with that underlying current (and for that reason lifted the scant number of ASW assets to the fore).
SW1 wrote: So perhaps fwd deployed reconnaissance forces along the nato border with rapid deployment of missile forces from the UK maybe what is planned it’s hard to tell at present
That would be a great way to go.
If you take the HETs discussion (renewal, incl. scaling is imminent), we can may be move a heavy BCT quickly.
- if we have the recce part of the BCT there, with deep strike assets movable easier than the whole of the Heavy BCT (one of the two), then we will have reasonable deployment, at a reasonable speed.
- though discounting infantry (which is something one should never do) we will end with 3 recce rgmnts screening for 3 with heavy/ at reach assets (the MBTs and the MLRS)
... so that force would not be a spearhead, but it would be useful for 'blunting' the head in the Opfor spear, while the other NATO formations hold the ground elsewhere and prepare for counter-manoeuvre. Or is this scenario ' British exceptionalism'?
Arguably screening and exploitation is what strike was/is all about and I really think that’s arguable what the two “heavy” brigades really are with the info we have so far. So perhaps we are doing that for a nato corp, perhaps also why the mlrs are being fitted with the rubber tracks to allow them to move easier.

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote:Arguably screening and exploitation is what strike was/is all about and I really think that’s arguable what the two “heavy” brigades really are with the info we have so far.
OK, from the vague-ish graphic, describing the BCTs , we will have
- two rgmnts of heavy rollers (148, in total, so make it 2 x 58)
- 4 Ajax-based rgmnts, two with the above, two in the Recce/ Strike BCT

So far, so good.

Then we will have 4 Boxer-based (AI) inf. bns
... with 85 inf. carriers plus a lot of supporting 'trades'
85 x 8 = almost 700 hundred dismounts; FSVs (that Boxer variety) carry more, so can round it up to two 'AI' bns

That is (!?) a 50 % cut, before we've even got started.
- like getting divisional artillery, other than MLRS that were already (unofficially) called that
- for now, we have enough of existing 'tubes' to apportion across the proposed formations
... but that is tactical (not what variously are called divisional/ operational fires... while the US formations are busy upgrading to theatre-wide fires)

Then we come to the 'other' protected mobility (and teaming such formations with light cavalry, or even substituting for Boxers... while we are waiting - why are :) we waiting)
... that is all in a mist (as far as I can see 'it')
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:
SW1 wrote:Arguably screening and exploitation is what strike was/is all about and I really think that’s arguable what the two “heavy” brigades really are with the info we have so far.
OK, from the vague-ish graphic, describing the BCTs , we will have
- two rgmnts of heavy rollers (148, in total, so make it 2 x 58)
- 4 Ajax-based rgmnts, two with the above, two in the Recce/ Strike BCT

So far, so good.

Then we will have 4 Boxer-based (AI) inf. bns
... with 85 inf. carriers plus a lot of supporting 'trades'
85 x 8 = almost 700 hundred dismounts; FSVs (that Boxer variety) carry more, so can round it up to two 'AI' bns

That is (!?) a 50 % cut, before we've even got started.
- like getting divisional artillery, other than MLRS that were already (unofficially) called that
- for now, we have enough of existing 'tubes' to apportion across the proposed formations
... but that is tactical (not what variously are called divisional/ operational fires... while the US formations are busy upgrading to theatre-wide fires)

Then we come to the 'other' protected mobility (and teaming such formations with light cavalry, or even substituting for Boxers... while we are waiting - why are :) we waiting)
... that is all in a mist (as far as I can see 'it')
Was they’re not also rumours of the infantry battalions being reduced in number to about 450?

I think there may well be additional orders for boxer which maybe why there has been so little mention of protected mobility as it maybe focused on the 2 light mech brigades and the airborne brigade.

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote: also rumours of the infantry battalions being reduced in number to about 450?
So far unclear (to me) where these rumours come from:
that sort of number is for two companies + some support
- in most discussions, the choice is between 3 or 4 :!:
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 »

There was a fairly recent falling out between France and Germany on what the notion of European strategic autonomy should mean.

If implemented as ambiguity it will just not resonate in Washington, but will also invite further Russian and Chinese 'probing attacks'. This week we will see whether Biden can succeed in rallying allies and partners around a common agenda to defend democracy. Indo-Pacific allies such as Australia and Japan (and ourselves; all these countries have the benefit of a 'moat') are onboard, but that is not where the G7(+3) ends
- and of course the NATO meeting on Monday will have to be counted into this (rolling) week, too
- the Dutch escort in the CTF should mean that at least one more vote (in addition to ours) has already been cast, on which stance to take

The timing of the 'domestic' political dispute over foreign aid is unfortunate (though between heads of states, rather than on newspaper front pages, it should be fairly clear that even with the cut the UK is far from standing on the 'bottom rung' of the ladder)
- nevertheless, the discussion (so far undecided) may somewhat lessen the standing of those who speak for us ... and let's not mention :oops: the sausages
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 »

Thought I would go back to Conceptual Force (Land) 2035 and what it says about manning levels, especially as that publication (a couple of years old) was already speaking 'BCTs'

"• Future Combat Team (FCT). The new unit of force will be the FCT, consisting of approximately 500 personnel that will deliver the mission sets attributed to today’s Armoured Infantry (AI) Battle Group of circa 1,250. It will be a combined arms force, with fewer personnel but increased manoeuvrability, firepower and sensors, delivering more combat mass.
- The FCT structure within CF(L)35 delivers 16 sovereign FCTs within the division
- This contrasts with the JF 25 modernised division which delivers 15 battle groups and assumes subordination of a US BCT and DK BG.

[Also] a flatter hierarchy, and have a better ratio of combat to combat support and combat service support than today’s BG so that it is sustainable and can fight with all its assets simultaneously. Mass will be augmented by Manned Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) with the addition of RAS in the FCT, that with a degree of artificial intelligence, novel materials and next-generation power generation, provide direct and indirect fire support, ISTAR, sustainment, communications, and deception, but without requiring as many personnel.
- The platforms displace the soldier from the firefight, until a time when DCC is decisive.

• Brigade Combat Team (BCT). BCT organisation will be flexible, delivering full spectrum effects in the deep to shape with long range massed precision fires, CEMA, and IM enabled by persistent ISTAR and resilient, high- bandwidth networks. Each BCT has sufficient CS and CSS to enable it to conduct operations independently of the Division or to provide mutual support to other BCTs as part of a divisional-level operation.

• Division. A CF(L)35 Division could contain circa 16,500 personnel rather than the 27,500 of the Joint Force Division of 2025. The Brigade Combat Teams (BCT), each of 3,500 individuals, are supported by Joint Fires, ISTAR, Manoeuvre Support, Aviation and sustainment assets. "
- if that holds and let's remember the recce/ strike BCT (in the main) is constituted of what used to be seen as divisional assets, so the one and only in the mix
=> 4 x 3500 = 14 000, leaves 2500 outside the 4 BCTs, e.g. 2 x Heavy, 1 x Recce/ Strike, 1 x Airmobile
AND would leave 2 x BCT plus the RM (applicable ) Cdos to be applied at the flanks... not of the 'division' but as for Nato flanks
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 »

16,500 personnel rather than the 27,500 of the Joint Force Division of 2025. The Brigade Combat Teams (BCT), each of 3,500 individuals, are supported by Joint Fires, ISTAR, Manoeuvre Support, Aviation and sustainment assets. "
- if that holds and let's remember the recce/ strike BCT (in the main) is constituted of what used to be seen as divisional assets, so the one and only in the mix
=> 4 x 3500 = 14 000, leaves 2500 outside the 4 BCTs, e.g. 2 x Heavy, 1 x Recce/ Strike, 1 x Airmobile
Against that composition, what the commonslibrary research note (=summary) says
"The army is to be reduced to 72,500 personnel, scrapping the previous headline figure of 82,000 set in the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review. The army is to be restructured, with the Infantry reorganised into four divisions, a new Ranger Regiment and five new Brigade Combat Teams. No redundancies will result"
it is sort of official that the BCT providing helicopters as support packages is a pool in its nature, but it is quite startling that the Airmobile BCT is not counted into 'the' 5
- I believe that not to be a mistake
- but rather confirming that the deployment would not happen as a BCT (the definition of a BCT is that it is a contained unit, capable of self-supporting itself when deployed), but rather inserting company/ bn -sized units, with their mixed attack/ medium/ heavy helicopters, into other BCTs. So, another pool in fact?

But in doing so, upping the BCT count from 5 (2+1+2) to 7 with the two aviation related added.
Considering,
for one that helicopters in the comparison with the US army structures are integral,and
for second that in the US army transformation plans the premise was that the new Div HQ equivalent would control up to six BCTs, to include any mix of Heavy, Infantry, and Stryker brigades
... can one be surprised :) at us ending up with 6 (plus a condensed 'JHC' structure for the army)
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)

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

Not without more money going to the Army, and no chance even then to be in place by 2030. If we actually get all that is already planned by 2030 I will be amazed.

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

There's money in the EP (the extra takes us over the' heath valley' to c. 2024).

But as you have pointed out yourself, with the current orders we will get an 'AI' inf. bn (fully kitted) and only one of the two Light BCTs has any 'named' mounts to use.
... so we will need to step on the gas, to get to the 6 (ie. a division equivalent, a manoeuvre division; we have 4 (admin) just for the infantry)
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)

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:There's money in the EP (the extra takes us over the' heath valley' to c. 2024).
But how much of that went to the Army, and how much is left now that most of the existing programmes have been put on a firmer financial footing? With all these other variants of both Ajax and boxer is the Army doing its usual trick of spending seed money to get a programme rolling and then hoping additional funds become available down the line when needed?

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by jonas »

Don't worry the army have it sorted :-

http://www.defencesynergia.co.uk/genera ... ence-2021/

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

Impressive speech I must admit but his idea of being on the brink of transformation which is actually at least a decade away is a bit too upbeat. I fully recognise the need for the Army to greatly enhance its cyber, networking and electronic warfare capabilities but these should have been funded in addition to the conventional modernisation not instead of. The Army is already short of Mass in many of its key areas and the further reduction only make this worse. Yes eventually unmanned platforms and digitalisation may compensate somewhat but again not for at least a decade. As I have said before the Army is taking a Decade long capability gap form warfighting except in the lowest of threat levels and the smallest of commitments.

J. Tattersall

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by J. Tattersall »

The interesting point is likely to be what the next defence and security review (in say 5 years) assesses the threat to be and what UK's needs are.

How will the threat have changed? A more or less aggressive Russia? Greater or reduced instability in Africa? A better or worse relationship with China? To what extent is instability in the middle East moving from terrorist led back to state led?

All these will tend to shift the UK's priorities to a greater or lesser extent, alter capability needs, and change force structures.

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

That is why the reviews need to be in two parts. First what is going to be achieved over the next five years as in new systems, hardware, manning levels etc. Second should be the longer term goals, which can be altered with each review as things develop. At present we are looking forward and not really dealing with issues in the short term. The Army planning to not have its programmes, as they currently stand completed until into the 2030s for example. We need in concrete that X number of Ajax will be delivered by 2025, troop number will be this many and so on. At present the reviews are more a PowerPoint PR Exercise that announce aspirations that are constantly moving, sometimes every year. I mean everybody knows that a Mortar carrier version of the Boxer is essential but why isn't this part of the original Order. They could have stipulated that the actual mortar system would be competed whilst the Boxer programme "slowly" got under way so that the two would marry up prior to the Army standing up the first Battalion. That is the beauty of the modular system.

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

J. Tattersall wrote:The interesting point is likely to be what the next defence and security review (in say 5 years) assesses the threat to be and what UK's needs are.

How will the threat have changed? A more or less aggressive Russia? Greater or reduced instability in Africa? A better or worse relationship with China? To what extent is instability in the middle East moving from terrorist led back to state led?

All these will tend to shift the UK's priorities to a greater or lesser extent, alter capability needs, and change force structures.
Haven’t seen a lot of change in the past 5 years don’t think there will be that much going fwd. Russian and China have been strengthening their home base while using soft and proxy power to antagonise and destabilise areas around there borders and further afield for some time. It will continue

The Middle East has long seen state backed terrorists being used to cause havoc mainly Iranian and saudi backed under a similar play book to Russia as well as being hostile to each other.

The UKs security priorities are largely what they have always been the Atlantic and NATO’s borders in the north, east and Mediterranean I see nothing that changes that.

I think the uk force structure will continue to fall into the 3 categories of shaping the upstream environment, deterrence and a force capable of responding to hostile acts against Nato or the UK

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Wherever in the world they may occur. :mrgreen:

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by jonas »

Government to buy Sheffield Forgemasters :-

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/loc ... t-21163228

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »


Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Repulse »

Lack of funding and ambition in our armed forces (remember the “first tier or not” discussions) were very much part of her premiership 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

Post Reply