Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)
Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)
Given we are only a year away from the next review, and that the Modernising Defence Programme mainly kicked thing down the road, I thought we might as well get the ball rolling on SDSR 2020.
The current ten year Equipment Programme (RP) still has a shortfall in funding, running between one and two billion pounds a year. At present the solution from the Treasury seems to be a case by case injection of cash on an annual basis, with no coherent plan. How this is affecting the MoD has to be imagined but it cannot be good, as each year they do not know if and how much the gap will be closed.
What makes matters far worse is that many programmes, especially for he Army will reach critical events over the next few years, requiring substantial funding to proceed into the production phase. Some like Ajax appear to be fully funded, but others like the MIV and MRV(P) do not. The Warrior BASV appears to be in limbo and the Challenger 2 sustainment programme, though it has now taken a few steps forward, seems to be relying of a major reduction in the fleet to find at least some of the funding necessary to move forward.
The Royal Air Force is trying to balance the increase in the size of the Typhoon fleet, integration of new weapons onto this platform and the raining of sufficient personnel to meet its needs across the service, but especially aircrew. To this we have to add the incredibly slow introduction of the F-35B into service, though this may actually save money on the longer term as less airframes will require costly upgrades to make them operational ready. This year a decision will be made as to what the future of the RAF's and FAA's transport helicopter fleet will take, looking at the replacement initially of the Puma HC2 but also the Chinook and Merlin in the longer term. This will fall outside the current EP in all probability but it will be a major programme during that time period. Finally the RAF is to receive both the P-8 Poseidon and the E-7 Wedgetail during the next decade, though where the money has come from for these expensive programmes is a mystery to me, especially the latter.
For the Royal Navy its two prime programmes will be the progression of the Carrier Group to full operational capability and the replacement of the CASD. The former includes the T-26 programme and also that of the T-31e. Both appear again to be fully funded but that cannot be guaranteed. The latter will be funded but now that it is part of the core Defence Budget, will have a major impact on the level of flexibility the MoD has when to comes to moving funds from programme to programme.
It is widely accepted that the United Kingdom does not spend enough to meet its military aspirations and with a very large bow wave of procurement programmes about to crash onto the beach so to speak, will additional funding be made available in the 2020 SDSR or will a number of programmes be allowed to burn to make the remainder affordable? Will the SDSR 2020 be a SDSR 2010 2.0? With an existing gap in funding is the best we can hope for it to maintain the status quo, drawing a line on any further procurement programmes being started for at least the next five years, or are some existing programmes going to be cut to allow new priorities to be met.
This is far from a comprehensive look to how this are made may develop but I do think we need to discuss where we think things will go, without getting out our wish lists of what we pretty much accept the UK really needs as against what it can afford.
The current ten year Equipment Programme (RP) still has a shortfall in funding, running between one and two billion pounds a year. At present the solution from the Treasury seems to be a case by case injection of cash on an annual basis, with no coherent plan. How this is affecting the MoD has to be imagined but it cannot be good, as each year they do not know if and how much the gap will be closed.
What makes matters far worse is that many programmes, especially for he Army will reach critical events over the next few years, requiring substantial funding to proceed into the production phase. Some like Ajax appear to be fully funded, but others like the MIV and MRV(P) do not. The Warrior BASV appears to be in limbo and the Challenger 2 sustainment programme, though it has now taken a few steps forward, seems to be relying of a major reduction in the fleet to find at least some of the funding necessary to move forward.
The Royal Air Force is trying to balance the increase in the size of the Typhoon fleet, integration of new weapons onto this platform and the raining of sufficient personnel to meet its needs across the service, but especially aircrew. To this we have to add the incredibly slow introduction of the F-35B into service, though this may actually save money on the longer term as less airframes will require costly upgrades to make them operational ready. This year a decision will be made as to what the future of the RAF's and FAA's transport helicopter fleet will take, looking at the replacement initially of the Puma HC2 but also the Chinook and Merlin in the longer term. This will fall outside the current EP in all probability but it will be a major programme during that time period. Finally the RAF is to receive both the P-8 Poseidon and the E-7 Wedgetail during the next decade, though where the money has come from for these expensive programmes is a mystery to me, especially the latter.
For the Royal Navy its two prime programmes will be the progression of the Carrier Group to full operational capability and the replacement of the CASD. The former includes the T-26 programme and also that of the T-31e. Both appear again to be fully funded but that cannot be guaranteed. The latter will be funded but now that it is part of the core Defence Budget, will have a major impact on the level of flexibility the MoD has when to comes to moving funds from programme to programme.
It is widely accepted that the United Kingdom does not spend enough to meet its military aspirations and with a very large bow wave of procurement programmes about to crash onto the beach so to speak, will additional funding be made available in the 2020 SDSR or will a number of programmes be allowed to burn to make the remainder affordable? Will the SDSR 2020 be a SDSR 2010 2.0? With an existing gap in funding is the best we can hope for it to maintain the status quo, drawing a line on any further procurement programmes being started for at least the next five years, or are some existing programmes going to be cut to allow new priorities to be met.
This is far from a comprehensive look to how this are made may develop but I do think we need to discuss where we think things will go, without getting out our wish lists of what we pretty much accept the UK really needs as against what it can afford.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: SDSR 2020
The quoted part would make a good headline for a thread like this.Lord Jim wrote: Will the SDSR 2020 be a SDSR 2010 2.0?
I am rather worried that counterfactual will overtake factual (or at least one cannot tell the difference while reading) in the same manner that happened with surface ships. The mods, luckily, took strong corrective action "on that front"
- what I am saying above is by no means an indicator of me not being happy to discuss funding and prioritision issues at a level higher than a single equipment prgrm - as everyone knows by now
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: SDSR 2020
Sorry to pick out one sentence from your post, @LJ, and not getting at you in any way, since I'm sure that this could make for an interesting discussion, but I suspect that the entire thread will be pervaded by comments along those lines,Lord Jim wrote: though where the money has come from for these expensive programmes is a mystery to me, especially the latter
or to summarise "I don't know what's in the budget, and can't be bothered to research it, therefor it's all going to be shit"
Far too many posting on here ascribe to that point of view. Any real discussion about budgets/ capabilities etc. is simply be buried in the noise (along with the fantasy build programs etc. etc).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: SDSR 2020
Without a commitment from the government to prioritize defence funding, then your statement remains true. However there comes a point where extra funds will be needed, let us pray its not too late for change.Lord Jim wrote:It is widely accepted that the United Kingdom does not spend enough
Re: SDSR 2020
The reason I made this particular point is I cannot remember the E-5 Wedgetail purchase being part of the 2015 SDSR, and given we are still running a £1Bn or £2Bn hole in the existing EP was simply wondering where the money for the E-7 purchase had come from. Of course if they actually turn up post 2025 then it is a new EP and it could be covered by this. And yes I know the P-8 was I the SDSR as was line items like those covered by the on going improvements to the Typhoon. My concern is for new programmes that were not in the SDSR and where the money for these is coming from unless the MoD has had a stash of cash behind the sofa all along.Caribbean wrote:or to summarise "I don't know what's in the budget, and can't be bothered to research it, therefor it's all going to be shit"
Finally it is broadly accepted that the MoD IS underfunded. To even stand still is going to take additional investment form the Treasury or else existing programmes will have to be reduced or cut all together. I agree that there is a lot of "Fantasy" talk here but I see that as people trying to see things through a half full glass rather than face up to reality. Things are bad. Yes we are getting new equipment but not in the quantities needed nor the increases in personnel needed to man them.
I used to think when a Government saw Body Bags arriving back form an operation that funding would increase. All that really happened was the UOR how to book was dusted off and £Bns were spent on kit we are now trying to find roles for. We still have Donkeys leading things in this country.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1716
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: SDSR 2020
Ok lets take a step back here and look at what the Army has in the pipeline. Can anyone cast light on which of the following programmes has Main Gate Production funding secured?
Warrior Capability Improvement Programme.
Challenger 2 Capability enhancement Programme.
MIV
MRV(P) Phase 1
MRV(P) Phase 2
If any of the above don't then there won't be without additional Governmental funding. As to what is going on behind closed doors in Main Building, your guess is as good as mine. This was why I suggested we look at what could be in SDSR 2030. The chances of additional funding for Defence is small so with the additional capability requirements like Cyber coming on line and having to be funded form the existing budget where are the reduction to free up the required funding to be made? The next SDSR is going to contain some hard choices yet again. The only alternative is to carry one as we are now, plan for the introduction of new capabilities without securing the funding ahead of time and rely on the good graces of the Treasury to bail us out when needed, assuming they can.
Warrior Capability Improvement Programme.
Challenger 2 Capability enhancement Programme.
MIV
MRV(P) Phase 1
MRV(P) Phase 2
If any of the above don't then there won't be without additional Governmental funding. As to what is going on behind closed doors in Main Building, your guess is as good as mine. This was why I suggested we look at what could be in SDSR 2030. The chances of additional funding for Defence is small so with the additional capability requirements like Cyber coming on line and having to be funded form the existing budget where are the reduction to free up the required funding to be made? The next SDSR is going to contain some hard choices yet again. The only alternative is to carry one as we are now, plan for the introduction of new capabilities without securing the funding ahead of time and rely on the good graces of the Treasury to bail us out when needed, assuming they can.
Re: SDSR 2020
If I can afford, the MoD has a larger budget than its French counterpart, you can not always ask for more financial means, you will have more expensive equipment than ours but in smaller numbers, for example the Boxer. Certainly a Boxer is not a Griffon, but we will have a little less than 1900 Griffon in 2030. So of course a Griffon for you is a MRAP of 25 tonnes. In the same way we will have a vehicle 4x4 troop carrier and multirole of 17 tonnes to about 2000 copies, that will make us nearly 4,000 multirole vehicles, if the budget is not cut, we will have enough to equip our army.
I'm not saying that we are smarter or something like that, but we have a long-term strategy on what should be the equipment of our army within the limits of the budget we have and in the use that we are going to make.
I think humbly that the MoD lacks strategy. Sorry to give my opinion not being British.
I'm not saying that we are smarter or something like that, but we have a long-term strategy on what should be the equipment of our army within the limits of the budget we have and in the use that we are going to make.
I think humbly that the MoD lacks strategy. Sorry to give my opinion not being British.
Re: SDSR 2020
It is very valid to say that the MoD lacks a long term strategy. It is interesting to see how its vision of how the Army should be organised and equipped has changed over the past few decades, causing multiple programmes to stutter or stop all together.
Re: SDSR 2020
I think the MOD are so pressurized with all the cuts since 2010 and the fall in the pound hasn't helped that they are just trying to play catch up and make shorter term decisions that effect the long term condition of the armed services, i do agree that we could have more for the same budget,
It just seems all these delaying decisions to save money in the short term doesn't help for the long term...i'm sorry to re state the obvious it does become a chore after this long !!
I think the future SSBN has had a financial detrimental effect but i do sort of agree we should keep it.
It just seems all these delaying decisions to save money in the short term doesn't help for the long term...i'm sorry to re state the obvious it does become a chore after this long !!
I think the future SSBN has had a financial detrimental effect but i do sort of agree we should keep it.
Re: SDSR 2020
The long term thinking of the Bollinger boys when putting the nuclear deterrent in the mod budget. The costs of submarine procurement would allow removal of the class of weapons because of its detrimental effect on conventual equipment without political cost. I personal think we should keep it as if you look at the shenanigans that Mr Putin gets up to. I doubt he would have caused trouble in Ukraine had they retained the ability to destroy Moscow .serge750 wrote:I think the future SSBN has had a financial detrimental effect but i do sort of agree we should keep it.
Re: SDSR 2020
Lord Jim wrote: Finally it is broadly accepted that the MoD IS underfunded.
Amongst who?
Re: SDSR 2020
When has the deterrent been outside the Defence budget?S M H wrote: The long term thinking of the Bollinger boys when putting the nuclear deterrent in the mod budget. The costs of submarine procurement would allow removal of the class of weapons because of its detrimental effect on conventual equipment without political cost. I personal think we should keep it as if you look at the shenanigans that Mr Putin gets up to. I doubt he would have caused trouble in Ukraine had they retained the ability to destroy Moscow .
Re: SDSR 2020
Everyone who accepts that the UK lacks the mass (and I am not going to try to give out names and addresses) within its armed forces to carry out all the tasks it is committed to, and that lack of funding is one of the core reasons for this. Yes there are other reasons but money is definitely one of them.topman wrote:Amongst who?
Re: SDSR 2020
Up until Osborne moved it into the core budget. the running costs for CASD have always been within the core but in the past the design and construction of the actual boats etc were a separate budget funded directly from the Treasury.indeid wrote:When has the deterrent been outside the Defence budget?
Re: SDSR 2020
I'm not suggesting that you do. Just challenging the idea that there is a widespread idea that the MoD is hard done by.Lord Jim wrote:Everyone who accepts that the UK lacks the mass (and I am not going to try to give out names and addresses) within its armed forces to carry out all the tasks it is committed to, and that lack of funding is one of the core reasons for this. Yes there are other reasons but money is definitely one of them.topman wrote:Amongst who?
That may be a given on defence forums but the reach is tiny in terms of numbers. Outside of here in the wider population there's little interest or knowledge of the state of funding. In fact I'd go as far as to say some in the public sector would look at the MoD as bit of favourite, other depts have had done far worse to their budgets, local government for one.
Re: SDSR 2020
Given all the cuts that the Labour did massive defence cuts in the 1960s they deliberately left nuclear weapons and delivery system procurement in a supplementary budget that was directly controlled by the treasury to sop it causing problems with conventual weapons procurement. This included tactical weapons. The Monk of Dunfermline. used the transfer of the tactical weapons to core budget as a effective way to remove them. Offering some additional spending freed up from the running cost. But the real savings for the treasury was removal of the we177s. As the procurement costings of replacement/ reconditioning weapons falling in 1999-2004 budgets. This was needed for other departmental spending. It is the procurement cost effect on other procurement that's the Elephant in the room effecting 2020 review or 2010 v2.Lord Jim wrote:Up until Osborne moved it into the core budget. the running costs for CASD have always been within the core but in the past the design and construction of the actual boats etc were a separate budget funded directly from the Treasury.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: SDSR 2020
Polaris was so massively expensive (esp. as the monies first for the ground-launched alternative, and the for the Blue Bolt had been wasted) that in effect it was paid out of culling 100k in the army, on garrison duty in what used to be the Empire.S M H wrote:iven all the cuts that the Labour did massive defence cuts in the 1960s they deliberately left nuclear weapons and delivery system procurement in a supplementary budget that was directly controlled by the treasury
- clearly a one-off
- Polaris is not a one off; Trident came around and the Gvmnt of the day was strong enough to push it through
Now again, for the last ten years the Gvmnt has played political football with the renewal of the deterrent, and exactly because
- between friends known as "crowding out"S M H wrote: It is the procurement cost effect on other procurement that's the Elephant in the room effecting 2020 review or 2010 v2.
- there is no "one off" to pay for it [ renewal, Round 3] because the peace dividend was eaten up by Iraq & A-stan (the latter carrying on to this day as the UORs are still there, kicking about and most needing a replacement)
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: SDSR 2020
Did the Treasury ever pay back the MoD for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Weren't they supposed to compensate the MoD for the operating costs as these were not part of the core budget, but the MoD ended up using its own funds for a large part of the operations.
Re: SDSR 2020
This was the Blair Brown stealth defence cuts.Lord Jim wrote:Did the Treasury ever pay back the MoD for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Weren't they supposed to compensate the MoD for the operating costs as these were not part of the core budget, but the MoD ended up using its own funds for a large part of the operations.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: SDSR 2020
Yes, very much later. So the damage had been incurred in the intervening years.Lord Jim wrote:Did the Treasury ever pay back the MoD for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Interestingly 'how much' is such a big secret (and also what part of it was paid 'in kind') that the only mention of it (a net settlement having been agreed between the Treasury and the MoD) was by this cocky ex-FT journalist who was hired to shake up the DE&S
- and even that was only captured as a mention in the minutes when he was testifying about something else, in front of the Defence Committee
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: SDSR 2020
I was thinking of posting some glass half full posts today but after Ben Wallace's recent statements I am getting worried what the next SDSR might hold for the Armed Forces. His key pint was that the UK must not rely on the US for a number of capabilities currently only the US can provide. By itself that is fine, but these capabilities are very expensive, such as ISTAR satellites. He also hinted that the Army for example may have to lose some infantry to free up funding for use elsewhere. Now the problem here is that the Army has already been hollowed out as has the other two services, and there is little left to remove without seriously impacting the ability of each service to do its job. The UK's Military has reach critical mass, some say it has already passed it, and yes the Army has a number of "Light Role" training battalions, but these should only be disbanded if the personnel are to be redistributed to other Army units to bring them up to full strength. I am starting to fear that the three services could once again suffer reduction in both hardware and personnel, in order to fund headline grabbing new capabilities. Yes we need these but they should be funded with new money. However given how this Government has already laid out its priorities, and how the groundwork is already being laid for an SDSR to play up new high tech capabilities whilst stating that legacy forces are less relevant and can therefore be reduced I am concerned.
Re: SDSR 2020
Yes it's just a big government farse of a stitch up of the forces agreed by yes men led by political folks who have no real understanding or care except of their own pet projects ,it's all going to end in our forces not in a good place at all ,I really hope I'm wrong with fingers crossed, but you can see what's going to happen ,just like in 2010 when camaron scrapped loads of equipment ,even he admitted yrs later that perhaps he shouldn't have cut so much but they will never learn from past mistakes
Re: SDSR 2020
The first of many Brexit dividends.clinch wrote:So what will be the defence cuts?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 08726.html