Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Gtal »

tomuk wrote:
Gtal wrote:
Even after the Brexit referendum Tim Farron thought he could continue the UK's long standing policy anouncing publicly:
"The UK will oppose all EU plans for increased military cooperation."
What has Tim Farron got to do with UK Goverment Policy? He didn't take a government role when the Lib Dems were in coalition government between 2010 and 2015. He was Lib Dem leader for two years 2015-2017 and their party is currently poling about 9%. He is a complete irrelevance.

Oh nice. Getting hung up on a minor mix up of names, big whoop.

Why don't you look up the quote and engage with the substantive points made?

https://www.forces.net/services/tri-ser ... on-eu-army

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Being Sloppy about WHO made a statement is also symptomatic about the CONTENT OF THAT STATEMENT …….. What Michael Fallon actually said was:-

“We agree Europe needs to step up to the challenges of terrorism and of migration. But we are going to continue to oppose any idea of an EU army or EU army headquarters, which would simply undermine NATO.”

HE DID NOT “Oppose co-operation on European Defence” and the UK was not the only EU country that was opposed to the fantasy.of an “EU Army”.

PLEASE Stick to the facts :mrgreen:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5599
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Tempest414 »

The idea of a EU army is great on paper but will fail in the end. The only way it could work is for all member states to increase defence sending to 3% GDP and commit a 3rd of there forces to the task. At this time NATO is committed to the 30 , 30 , 30 , 30 plan meaning 30 Battalion's , 30 fighter squadron , 30 warships ready to deploy within 30 days

Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Gtal »

Tempest414 wrote:The idea of a EU army is great on paper but will fail in the end. The only way it could work is for all member states to increase defence sending to 3% GDP and commit a 3rd of there forces to the task. At this time NATO is committed to the 30 , 30 , 30 , 30 plan meaning 30 Battalion's , 30 fighter squadron , 30 warships ready to deploy within 30 days
EU spends 200 billion a year on defence. It's just massively inefficient because of 27 separate budgets and structures. At least 20
EU countries have been too small to maintain a coherent force for decades. They really are a bunch of MINOs (Military in name only :D) and might as well just scrap their defence budgets entirely for all the defending they can do in the 21st century.
Not too far fom now the others will be in the same situation.

Create a single market for defence, stop using 10 different tanks, 10 different fighters, 10 different helicopters etc etc and presto: you exponentially increase capabilities.
Stop having tiny units of 30-40 fighters or 60-70 tanks each with separate logistic infrastructures, halve the number of flight schools etc and presto: The efficiency increases exponentially.

The economic argument really is not disputable. It's what capitalism is about. Economies of scale

It's not even in the medium/long term national interest of the US to keep the status quo. The world has changed, the only way to maintain western dominance is by forging a more powerful alliance and the EU is the only realistic partner available.

But of course the US military industrial complex don't care about the natioal interest or bigger pictures, all that mattersr is the next quarterly bottom line and they would do anything to try and maintain the status quo.

That's the situation, that's why all these thinktanks and commentators suddenly forget all their capitalist mantras and believes they espouse on any other topic and spout such incoherent nonsense when it comes to this issue.

Gtal
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Germany

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Gtal »

Scimitar54 wrote:Being Sloppy about WHO made a statement is also symptomatic about the CONTENT OF THAT STATEMENT …….. What Michael Fallon actually said was:-

“We agree Europe needs to step up to the challenges of terrorism and of migration. But we are going to continue to oppose any idea of an EU army or EU army headquarters, which would simply undermine NATO.”

HE DID NOT “Oppose co-operation on European Defence” and the UK was not the only EU country that was opposed to the fantasy.of an “EU Army”.

PLEASE Stick to the facts :mrgreen:

The mental gymnastics you are performing are absolutely mindboggling.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4684
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Repulse »

An EU Army could work, but solely as a defence force, we a pre-agreed mandate and deployment. TBH, I think it would probably be a good thing as NATO is already dead.

The UK could contribute as a partner with naval, air and C&C/ISR assets along with deployable SF, RM and other light / Airborne troops for supporting the Nordics, Baltics or Eastern Med (Cyprus).
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5761
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

Who writes the ROE for this euro army and who pays for it

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

Gtal wrote:But of course the US military industrial complex don't care about the national interest or bigger pictures
.

The same could be said about the French, who are all for co-operation as long as they get the lion's share fo the work, to support their homegrown defence industries. But the future may be bright, the next generation MBT for example could see it being the successor to the Leopard 2 in all the european armies using these tanks as well as the France, the UK and Italy who currently use their own domestic designs, becoming the standard european tank by default. There is some do-operation between the two european giants of warship building, France and Italy at present with both building the same support ship, but we are along way form full co-operation on both Warship and also military aircraft design and construction.

Until Europeans nations can agree common requirements and specification for complex items, co-operation maybe limited to sub assemblies and components, like Radar and guided weapons. But the fact that there is not even a common set of small arms amongst the european military, and the most common platform in service is one based on the American AR-15 in one form and another says a lot.

Systems and procedures are being developed and put in place to facilitate closer co-operation within Europe, and some positive results have emerge such as a common medical practice and equipment I believe, but national desire to retain control and protect highly skilled jobs is going to make rapid progress difficult, as is the simple need to get all EU members to agree on relevant issues.

J. Tattersall

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by J. Tattersall »

SW1 wrote:Who writes the ROE for this euro army and who pays for it
I agree. You raise two good points.

Firstly, who writes the ROE? Contrary to popular opinion (as I'm sure you're aware) ROE are political rather than legal limitations on the use of military force. This implies a central political directing mind. But who would it come from, the European Council, the PSC etc. etc.., and how long would it take to change? Likely some ROE decisions could be reserved for the operational commander, but for others who (in Brussels?) would the urgent submission be sent to requesting an ROE change? Politically one of the main functions of a sovereign state would have been divested and participating states wouldn't merely be dependent on another power (as many currently are on the US) they would become suzerain entities.

Secondly, who pays? Well presumably they'd all have to pay through some sort of common funding mechanism such as that used but the EU. However, the EU takes around 1% of its members GDP at present. It's hard to see a credible defence force needing less than 2% (possibly more), hence straight away there's a massive increase in EU expenditure needed which would need to be paid for by its members, and how would it be made more auditable (& less susceptible to corruption) than the current EU budget?

These are profound questions that need to asked, one can't simply intellectually goose-step ones way to a Euroarmy concept. The experience of the last 23 years since St Malo however is that EU members a) don't want to deploy their forces somewhere that's too militarily and politically dangerous, and thus aren't prepared to loose political control and b) don't really want to pay more for their own defence, let alone that of others (in spite of all the economies of scale arguments used over the past 1/4 century).

So is a Euroarmy a bad thing? Well not necessarily, but it would herald the demise of participating EU members as sovereign states. Is it likely? Well that's hard to tell, the fallout from the current Afghanistan crisis might well trigger something. I suspect what we'll see is a hard look in Europe (EU + non-EU), Canada and Australia about our dependencies on the US and where these have become imbalanced. If one takes that approach then any common international initiatives (European or otherwise) should focus clearly on removing or lessening dependencies (e.g. ISR?), rather than going down the Euroarmy route. However, the easy way out of it would to be to create another paper tiger prefixed with the word Euro-. Therein lies a real danger.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5761
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

You don’t need a euro army for economy’s of scale. What you need is base platforms with a common set of interfaces that people can work too and then design and integrate accordingly. You could also drive for a common set of design and release to
service criteria that countries work to, if its cleared
in Holland it’s accepted as gd in France ect ect.

You can see it starting to happen to an extent with type 31, fremm, boxer, typhoon, a330, a400m. All base platforms being used by many different countries all with different equipment fitted to suit the National requirements. It’s the engines and sub systems that are expensive and where the integration can be National priorities and beneficial to economies.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Scimitar54 »

EU Army = No or inadequate Defence, because it is run by “Inadequates” Just look at the COVID Vaccine mess. :idea:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5599
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Tempest414 »

Gtal wrote:EU spends 200 billion a year on defence. It's just massively inefficient because of 27 separate budgets and structures. At least 20
EU countries have been too small to maintain a coherent force for decades.
This is why I would like to see the UK join a CAZNUK alliance this would have a 120 billion dollar budget per year and connect four like minded countries together
Gtal wrote:Create a single market for defence, stop using 10 different tanks, 10 different fighters, 10 different helicopters etc etc and presto: you exponentially increase capabilities.
Stop having tiny units of 30-40 fighters or 60-70 tanks each with separate logistic infrastructures, halve the number of flight schools
and again this is what I would like to see from said CANZUK alliance Australia , Canada and UK are already working on type 26 and Australia and the UK have Boxer so if we could get Canada and New Zealand in with a work share something like

UK = Aircraft and ship design
Australia = MRV(P) deisgn
Canada = Armoued Vehicle design
New Zealand = small arms design

with all countries funding and having a say in the design plus building what they can in there own country

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 cannot see New Zealand that interested in workshare, more being able to purchase cost effective platforms that are common to the other members of the alliance. Sub assembly work would suit them more. I would give the small arms folder to Australia.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5599
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Tempest414 »

It was just a idea of what could happen

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by jedibeeftrix »

Repulse wrote:An EU Army could work, but solely as a defence force, we a pre-agreed mandate and deployment.
This.

There is nothing impossible about the notion of a eu army, merely that it would be a pointless exercise without an eu foreign policy...

... unless you have excised all ambition for an 'activist' foreign policy intent on elective warfare.

**france splutters over its croissant: "ahem, mon ami, j'ai des réserves..."**

J. Tattersall

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by J. Tattersall »

jedibeeftrix wrote: There is nothing impossible about the notion of a eu army, merely that it would be a pointless exercise without an eu foreign policy...
This is the crux of the matter. It it's not a question of decision making mechanisms (QMV vs unanimity) nor hypothetical economies of scale, but rather that 27 countries have 27 different foreign policies with only limited overlap. Couple that with high levels of distrust between many member states, and an overall low level of trust, and I would be very surprised for a European army to become an effective reality.

That of course doesn't mean that there won't be moves to create yet another European military force, however all the accumulated history is that there is both a lack of willingness to spend money on defence, and even less European political appetite to deploy military power (with all the political risk that entails). As such any successor to EU battle groups is likely to be an exercise in rearranging deck chairs rather than anything more meaningful.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5761
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »



The defence secretary on what global Britain and pacific tilt means for defence and why our defence relationship with the French will have to deepen.

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

What was very noticeable from my point of view was the disregard for mass as an important issue. Taking that forward our Armed Forces become exceedingly fragile and we lose our ability to use "Hard Power", as we will have no resilience, whether our troops are in Europe, Norway or out east. More importantly any opponent will also know that, and will believe that all it would take would be one big kick and we would be out of the game so to speak.

As always lots of good rhetoric, but a serious lack of substance which is dangerous and could cost lives.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1714
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Scimitar54 »

Just what I have been banging on about! We need all the transformation, however, when all is said.and done we need also to be considerably larger (Prepare for War and enjoy the peace). It is no good enough being sized for “peacetime”, you need to build in an adequate contingency “for War”. :idea:

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2697
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by bobp »

Looks like big cuts on the way including the JLTV....

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/15072 ... ce-smaller

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

It appears that a general consensus has been achieved where people have accepted that the British Army is taking a ten year holiday from being able to do much beyond the deployment of Special Forces and small detachment form the planned "Ranger" Regiment. The MoD and Government will never publicly accept that, and will repeatedly go on about future plans and new capabilities even though many of these will not be mature until the latter part of teh 2030s if not later if funding is not provided. The greatest danger to the British Army though is if spending is concentrated on the new "Sexy" capabilities and more traditional and conventional capabilities are left to wither through lack of investment, possibly beyond the point where they can be reconstituted.

The Government and especially the Treasury must be made to see out conventional forces as being a crucial deterrent against aggression by another nation in the same way our nuclear Deterrent protects ourselves and our allies against a nuclear thereat form a foreign power. If we are not willing to maintain a conventional deterrent we might as well give up our nuclear deterrent as well. The latter cannot be used to prevent a conventional attack, no British Government would use id Nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack even if they fail to say as much publicly.

Our Armed forces are already far too brittle to be able to effectively fight a peer level conflict of any length. We simple do not have the reserves of personnel, equipment and consumables to do so. All the Treasury's calculations seem to be based wholes on peace time usage and assignment. They do not seem to care that in wartime, especially at peer level, if one looks a the usage of consumables, the increase in their usage will increase massively, and that we will not be able to purchase replacements in any timely manner. We could "Borrow" kit from our allies, but many of these are in the same situation as ourselves.

As stated at the beginning, the Army is gambling that no major conflicts requiring its services will take place for at least a decade. It has procurement programmes in place that will fill many of its capability holes though it will still lose more mass. But all these programmes are on a knife edge with no room to manoeuvre with out causing the entire transformation to fall apart. By the early 2030s the following must be in place;
-Networking of all command units down to Platoon /Troop Level, for both personnel and vehicles.
-Challenger 3
-Boxer in all required variants including Recce and IFV.
-New 155mm Artillery Systems.
-Precision and cargo extended range rounds for 155mm.
-Modified M270 GMLRS.
-Very long and extended range precision rockets with unitary and munition warheads.
-MRV(P) phases 1 and 2.
-New ATGWs covering ranges form 2km to 20Km+
-Improved Air Defences for Army units combining missile and gun weapon systems as well as soft means to disable UAVs.
-Greatly increased and improved EW capability will improved mobility.
-Greater and more flexible ISTAR platforms.
-New Combat Engineering platforms to increase the mobility of Army units.
-Improvements to existing heavy Combat Engineering Platforms.
-New and improved Small Arms.

The list is actually longer but these are just the headlines as those needed for the British Army to be viable in any peer conflict post 2030. The Army may have been top of the pile for funding during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this funding was mainly used in the letting of UOR related contract, often for kit our troops should already have had. Not having a viable Army in future will mean that we aill still be bale to show the flag using the Royal Navy and contribute to allied air operations, but any significant ground forces beyond small company sized battlegroups will be very hard to deploy let alone sustain. If our Government is happy for that to happen then so be it but they will be accountable if a ground war, that the experts said would not happen, does!

Sunday sermon done. :angel:

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

It is amazing how quiet things have become regarding the Army's equipment programme after the hype that resulted form the Command Paper earlier this year.

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: Australia & New Zealand and as time went on it could pull in others like Japan , Singapore and maybe India
J. Tattersall wrote: as I fear, the EU fails to deliver and instead focuses it's energies on Eurocratic policy initiatives such as Strategic Compass
Gtal wrote: among the big boys, leaving Poland, Lithuania and the Ukraine humiliated.
Well, as for the first one above, we seem to be working on Indo-Pacific
- will be interesting to see if the 'Indo' side of it will turn out to have more substance

Strategic Compass... how can we judge when it only coming soon. At the usual channel, usual time

Those mentioned nations; the whole episode of New and Old Europe was a sad one. Driven from a 'divide & conquer' perspective. But has left lasting fissures, now coming up on many fronts
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 »

Repulse wrote:supporting the Nordics, Baltics
JEF? I was thrown by a recent comment (J. Tattersall) that Germany & Poland are not in it, even though they are part of the Northern Group??

JEF gets coverage through the regular joint exercises, but as for numbers available it is a bit 'misty' - to avoid the word 'nebulous' :) .
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4684
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy, the JEF requirement is currently more broad than just the Baltics and defending the northern flank - it is supposed to be capable of global deployment of like minded nations.

However, given the focus is the ability to deploy rapidly adaptable forces then this would be a strong contribution to NATO and aligned to UK interests of containing Russia.

With German forces now operating more closely with Dutch amphibious forces, I can see Germany getting involved (though more reluctant to project military power outside of the Europe). Poland is an interesting question, whilst they have limited amphibious forces and other power projection units their focus is primarily continental focused.

I would say is that as a focus for the EU, perhaps a Joint Continental Defence Force would be a good start, which again could be under Europe but also capable of independent operations when needed (e.g. in the Balkans).

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. However, with the broader tantrums, EU interests and French interests in the eastern Med (and antagonising Turkey), this seems dead in the water.

The bilateral alliance with the Ukraine is a start, but for the Eastern Med, perhaps a deeper alliance with Turkey could make sense, though could cause issues with Cyprus.

In North Africa and sub Sahara, probably UN focused contributions is best, but I’m wondering if trying to get a “JEF” style alliance with Kenya, Nigeria and Sierra Leone may be an option?
”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