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 »

I agree with much said but I have difficulty with the fact that we are finding more and more resources to pass on to Ukraine yet nothing has been said about changes to the current plans for our Armed Forces to take into account the changes happening inthe world and our role in it. The Current IR is becoming more and more irrelevant as are the resources allocated to our Armed Forces. Given how long it currently takes to change things, decisions need to be taken now as a matter of urgency!
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim wrote: 28 Apr 2022, 22:33 I agree with much said but I have difficulty with the fact that we are finding more and more resources to pass on to Ukraine yet nothing has been said about changes to the current plans for our Armed Forces to take into account the changes happening inthe world and our role in it. The Current IR is becoming more and more irrelevant as are the resources allocated to our Armed Forces. Given how long it currently takes to change things, decisions need to be taken now as a matter of urgency!
You could argue the opposite actually, the IR called a number of things correctly if you read the whole document. It was quite historically traditionalist in its outlook especially when you got past of jingoistic rhetoric press releases about global this and that.

Some of the more derided aspects of the defence paper have actually been shown to be heading in the right direction and perhaps not going far enough due to resistance with the establishment.

There is also other areas of the command paper in particular that are completely incoherent by stating they should do one thing then doing completely the opposite against likely due to legacy major procurement decisions attached to large sacred cows.

The resource question is one that alway is the last refuge of a scoundrel! It is also incorporates far more than just the military budget. Would we be able to use the foreign aid budget to buy lots of JCBs to send to Ukraine to help in the rebuild for example. It is also about decoupling ourself from outsourcing our industrial capacity particularly of expendables to “cheaper” foreign powers.

Even they had twice as much people would still want more or blame it for why something “exquisite” was in trouble. accepting resources are finite are a prerequisite to sensible policy, there are many ways to achieve an aim with force structure. Arguably too much is spent on the latest thing and not enough of sustaining development and readiness of what they have already, there remain so much potiential with what they have already paid for.

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 issue is policy is disconnected from Resources, still. I also find clarity is something distinctly mission from any of the last few Reviews, and I believe this is a deliberate policy, supported by whatever Government is in power to ensure the public have little idea of the true state of things. UORs have now become the MoD's sticking plasters for when they are caught with their pants down such as the "Snatch" Landrover in Iraq!

The last IR and Command Paper started it look in the right direction, but pushed nearly everything ten years or nearly three elections down the road. Programmes are still set to over extended timeframes due to lack of resources meaning kit can arrive in service no longer fit for purpose, and requiring expensive UORs to bring them up to standard if needed operationally.

If we truely want to transform the Army for example it needs to be done at a far faster rate with any additional funding up front covered by new money. The Government made great PR our of the intent to transform the Army, it should put its money where its mouth is.

We should have nearly all the Boxers in their necessary variants in service by the end of 2025 for example. The same could also be said for the replacement of the AS-90, arguably the highest priority programme for the Army. GDUK should have until 2025 to deliver all Ajax on order in a fully operational conditions i.e. ready for combat operations within the existing contract. Any additional versions should be made by converting examples already delivered by that date. The Challenger 3 programme should also be accelerated. It has been sold to the MoD as a low risk, high gain programme, so we should put Rheinmetall to the test. Nothing on the upgraded vehicle is new technology, but rather a number of components from parts bit of platforms Rheinmetall already have in production, and then only the turret is radically modified. Inventories of consumables need to be expanded and increased and to do that, given the delivery lead time on such items, orders need to be placed now, not in a few years time and again the cost of this should come from new money from the Treasury.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim wrote: 29 Apr 2022, 02:05 The issue is policy is disconnected from Resources, still. I also find clarity is something distinctly mission from any of the last few Reviews, and I believe this is a deliberate policy, supported by whatever Government is in power to ensure the public have little idea of the true state of things. UORs have now become the MoD's sticking plasters for when they are caught with their pants down such as the "Snatch" Landrover in Iraq!

The last IR and Command Paper started it look in the right direction, but pushed nearly everything ten years or nearly three elections down the road. Programmes are still set to over extended timeframes due to lack of resources meaning kit can arrive in service no longer fit for purpose, and requiring expensive UORs to bring them up to standard if needed operationally.

If we truely want to transform the Army for example it needs to be done at a far faster rate with any additional funding up front covered by new money. The Government made great PR our of the intent to transform the Army, it should put its money where its mouth is.

We should have nearly all the Boxers in their necessary variants in service by the end of 2025 for example. The same could also be said for the replacement of the AS-90, arguably the highest priority programme for the Army. GDUK should have until 2025 to deliver all Ajax on order in a fully operational conditions i.e. ready for combat operations within the existing contract. Any additional versions should be made by converting examples already delivered by that date. The Challenger 3 programme should also be accelerated. It has been sold to the MoD as a low risk, high gain programme, so we should put Rheinmetall to the test. Nothing on the upgraded vehicle is new technology, but rather a number of components from parts bit of platforms Rheinmetall already have in production, and then only the turret is radically modified. Inventories of consumables need to be expanded and increased and to do that, given the delivery lead time on such items, orders need to be placed now, not in a few years time and again the cost of this should come from new money from the Treasury.
Lord Jim wrote: 29 Apr 2022, 02:05 The issue is policy is disconnected from Resources, still. I also find clarity is something distinctly mission from any of the last few Reviews, and I believe this is a deliberate policy, supported by whatever Government is in power to ensure the public have little idea of the true state of things. UORs have now become the MoD's sticking plasters for when they are caught with their pants down such as the "Snatch" Landrover in Iraq!

The last IR and Command Paper started it look in the right direction, but pushed nearly everything ten years or nearly three elections down the road. Programmes are still set to over extended timeframes due to lack of resources meaning kit can arrive in service no longer fit for purpose, and requiring expensive UORs to bring them up to standard if needed operationally.

If we truely want to transform the Army for example it needs to be done at a far faster rate with any additional funding up front covered by new money. The Government made great PR our of the intent to transform the Army, it should put its money where its mouth is.

We should have nearly all the Boxers in their necessary variants in service by the end of 2025 for example. The same could also be said for the replacement of the AS-90, arguably the highest priority programme for the Army. GDUK should have until 2025 to deliver all Ajax on order in a fully operational conditions i.e. ready for combat operations within the existing contract. Any additional versions should be made by converting examples already delivered by that date. The Challenger 3 programme should also be accelerated. It has been sold to the MoD as a low risk, high gain programme, so we should put Rheinmetall to the test. Nothing on the upgraded vehicle is new technology, but rather a number of components from parts bit of platforms Rheinmetall already have in production, and then only the turret is radically modified. Inventories of consumables need to be expanded and increased and to do that, given the delivery lead time on such items, orders need to be placed now, not in a few years time and again the cost of this should come from new money from the Treasury.
It’s the procurement decision of the last 20 years that has ended up with what we have now and for the army in particular none have been gd despite significant money spent.

But you ask where you go from here well as a high level the army structure isn’t that bad, two heavy brigades, artillery brigade and 2 light mech brigades and a airmobile bigade. It’s the detail and what was required to be changed in force structure and equipment planning that appears to be disconnected from that. Is more recruiting being directed toward support arms than combat arms for example if the long term plan is deployable brigades?

Leaving aside the 3 lighter brigades, you ask how you square the circle. Do u actually need to replace as90? As there is no logistical support in the deep brigade at all just a collection of artillery units and Ajax. You could say well we just have 2 heavy brigades configured as a single cavalry recon reg, 3 combined armed battalions (along the lines of the US) supported by an mlrs reg as artillery at least they then have eng and logistics to support there deployment. But that would req a fundamental review of programs and taking actual decisions on things.

It’s not just military forces that is only 1/3 of the response the diplomatic and economic robustness is just as important

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 one thing the Army has done right is establish two trials and development units. It is using these units to investigate what capabilities are needed and what is the nest way to achieve them. One is the successor to the unit that was developing the new doctrine for the planned "Strike" Brigades, and has accumulated a fair amount of information, especially how the mechanised Infantry Battalions should be organised. But as always funding is the road block to the implementation of many of these. For example, whilst independent experts and members of the Army have identified that the Battalions really need an under armour 120mm Mortar, ideally turret mounted, the Army can at resent only look at mounting the existing 81mm Mortar on the Boxer in the same way it was mounted on the FV432, with minimum modification including secure mounting points and ammunition stowage.

With the Boxer the Army had the opportunity to look at how other nations use the wheeled platforms and how their units are organised. The French Army has used the VAB 4x4 to transport its Infantry Battalions for decades and now is using the 8x8 VBCI to transport what are the British Army would call its Armoured Infantry. Then there is the US Army with its Stryker Battalions and Brigades. These are very effective all arms units with high mobility and high firepower. Both these provide many lessons on how to and how not to operate a platform such as the Boxer, and what variants are assentation for a viable Battalion sized unit. However what s publicly available on how Boxer equipped units in teh British Army are to be equipped leaves a lot to be desired and gives the appearance of going back to the 1970s with its Infantry riding in APCs with a machine gun, and supported by Tanks. Infantry would attack on foot having dismounts near the Objective and supported by ranges fire from both their APCs and attached Tanks as they assault the objective.

It will be very interesting to see how the events taking place in the Ukraine are taken on board by the Army's trials units and what lesson are learned. More importantly will the Army act on said lessons and use the information gathered to build a strong case for resources to fund what is needed in a timely manor.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Tempest414 »

First and fore most we should be putting into place the BCT's using what kit we have so we should be looking at 2 x Heavy BCT's with

1 x MBT Regt = CH2
1 x Cavalry Regt = CVR(T)
2 x infantry Battalions = Warrior
1 x Artillery support = AS-90 , MLRS , Air defence , UAV
1 x Logistics support = RLC , RE , REME , RSC , RMC
1 x Air Support group = Apache , Wildcat , 3 x MERT Chinooks

and for me we should be looking at 6 x light Motorized Battalion battle groups with

1 x Cavalry company = Jackal & Coyote
1 x Infantry battalion = foxhound and Mastiff
1 x Artillery support = 105mm , Exactor , air defence , UAV
1 x Logistics support = RLC , RE , REME , RSC , RMC

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

How global trade is changing

These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Lord Jim »

WE also need to starting looking at the Army as being made up of units that are all available for operations in a very short time . As an exaple the two Heavy BCTs should be available at the very least 72hrsa notice as should 16AA and at least one of the Light BCTs for operations within NATO. Obviously, timings would be longer for deployments further afield. The basic readiness levels for the Regular Army as a whole, should at least match those of what BOAR held in the 1980s. This need to cover not just the Combat formations but al the support units needed to get the Combat units to where they are needed and to support them once in theatre.

Increased readiness should also apply to the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Tempest414 »

what I would like to see and what I think we need in the front line

Army

1 x Deep Strike BCT
3 x Heavy Mechanised BCT
3 x Light Mechanised BCT
1 x Air Assault BCT
1 x Ranger Regiment
1 x SFA Brigade

Air Force

3 x Tyhpoon Wings ( each with 37 jets )
1 x F-35 wing ( with 48 jets )
1 x Tactical transport wing
1 x Strategic transport wing
1 x Recce wing
1 x MPA wing

Navy

CASD
2 x CSG's = 1 x carrier , 2 x T-45 , 3 x T-26 , 1 x SSN
3 x LRG's = 1 x MRSS , 2 x T-32's
1 x Global patrol Sqn = 6 x T-31's & 5 x River B2's
1 x Home waters Sqn = 6 x 60 meter patrol boats

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »



Here we go again!

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by inch »

All too late as we all on here know , when it's potentially all going to kick off big style and the country is left military week in reality as we are now ,all the bluster showing the flag ,cuts , capability gaps ,bad procurement,MOD incompetence,dire government cuts ,no accountabilities MPs , lefty's mindset spend on people pc etc and cut cut cut defence ,is all going to come back and bite us in a big style friends , political class are going to be screaming soon why haven't we got this that or the other to defend the country ,as I've always said peace costs money and it won't matter till it matters but hey now it potentially really matter

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 very ;ittle left to cui that would not be very visible and cause political chaos. The Army is already too small and barely able to do its core duties, the Navy has the minimum number of escorts it can manage with the number of SSNs definitely too low, and the RAF has been reduced to around seven front line squadrons, probably the lowest it has ever been.

The only way cuts could be made is with a substantial public revision of the roles and commitments our Armed Forces have, which could affect our membership standing in NATO and with our allies near and far. Of course, we could go down the well-trodden path of reducing the number of items under contract and increasing the time to delivery, but these rarely produce long term savings, in fact it is often the opposite that occurs.

Any new review is unlikely to be of benefit to the Armed Forces as a whole.

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Rentaghost »

Lord Jim wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 01:37 There is very ;ittle left to cui that would not be very visible and cause political chaos. The Army is already too small and barely able to do its core duties, the Navy has the minimum number of escorts it can manage with the number of SSNs definitely too low, and the RAF has been reduced to around seven front line squadrons, probably the lowest it has ever been.

The only way cuts could be made is with a substantial public revision of the roles and commitments our Armed Forces have, which could affect our membership standing in NATO and with our allies near and far. Of course, we could go down the well-trodden path of reducing the number of items under contract and increasing the time to delivery, but these rarely produce long term savings, in fact it is often the opposite that occurs.

Any new review is unlikely to be of benefit to the Armed Forces as a whole.
Why would a new review be another exercise in cuts if Truss is serious about an increase in defence spending?
These users liked the author Rentaghost for the post:
jedibeeftrix

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by mrclark303 »

Rentaghost wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 08:34
Lord Jim wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 01:37 There is very ;ittle left to cui that would not be very visible and cause political chaos. The Army is already too small and barely able to do its core duties, the Navy has the minimum number of escorts it can manage with the number of SSNs definitely too low, and the RAF has been reduced to around seven front line squadrons, probably the lowest it has ever been.

The only way cuts could be made is with a substantial public revision of the roles and commitments our Armed Forces have, which could affect our membership standing in NATO and with our allies near and far. Of course, we could go down the well-trodden path of reducing the number of items under contract and increasing the time to delivery, but these rarely produce long term savings, in fact it is often the opposite that occurs.

Any new review is unlikely to be of benefit to the Armed Forces as a whole.
Why would a new review be another exercise in cuts if Truss is serious about an increase in defence spending?
That's the crux of the situation...

Since the last Covid delayed SDSR, the acknowledged possible threat from Russia, has turned to real and direct threat to NATO.

The goal of 3% GDP on defence is broadly supported ( for the first time ever) by Labour too. So no matter who wins the 5 year bun fights, defence is looking to be back on a far more stable footing.

So, 3% GDP, an extra 12 billion 'ish' a year is a very substantial rise and should allow for a progressive 20 year rebuilding of our defence posture across the board.

My thoughts....

Army, 115,000

Rebuilding Armoured forces to a sensible level would be a priority along with increasing mobility and high technology equipment across the board.

5 Armoured Regiments 350 new MBT's with all the necessary Artillery support etc including 90 AH64E.

RAF, The RAF has been hit the hardest of the lot and is, in my opinion on the very edge of being considered an effective force.

So 12 fast jet squadrons of first rate updated Thypoon, giving way to Tempest, plus 'capable' loyal wingmen to boost numbers out to an effective 300 airframes combined.

Support Helicopter and Transport fleet sized appropriately to meet the requirements of an enlarged Army.

Royal Navy.

Rebuilding the escort fleet progressively to 40, displacement of types to be decided.

I would suggest

16 T26 as the core capability

12 Air Defence Destroyers

12 upgunned GP T31 with enhanced weapons fit.

12 SSN
4 SSBN

RFA sized to support

Amphibious capability rebuilt to allow an expanded Royal Marines to deploy as a Brigade and take on the new Commando Raider concept, so expanded to four Commandos, plus it's other roles, say 10,000 men.

Amphibious Helicopter support expanded to the required size.

FAA 4 squadrons of F35B, all Navy operated and capable Loyal Wingman to support them with suitable modifications to the QE class.

Plus's carrier based resupply and AAR. Types to be evaluated, manned/ unmanned.

A rough idea of where I think we should expand our capacity too with 3% sustained funding on defence over 20 years.

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

The change since the last sdr is not necessarily military. It’s has highlighted in energy what government covid lockdowns demonstrated in destroying manufacturing supply chains, that we have been too reliant on supply from countries that are not friendly and that we are not sufficiently resilient in our domestic supply chains. This would be further exacerbated by any sanction on China as result of any more potential aggression shown to Taiwan.

I think therefore the national resilience element will need to be looked at again in that light.

There is of course a great rush to assume there will be purchase of all manner of new equipment but there is some problems with that line of thinking in that even to take what was agreed in the most recent review more infrastructure, support, training and personnel investment would be required just to make it resilient and robust without going further. If the speed of the recapitalisation is to be increased which maybe necessary in some areas that to would require more cash.

Perhaps the most striking lesson Ukraine is the same lesson we learned at the end of the Cold War, that beyond its nuclear capability the Russian military is not that gd and it’s systems do not come anywhere close to the hype. Perhaps Ukraine also shows the need to concentrate of defence and less on capability for invasions.

For the uk military particularly as interest rates rise back toward historic norms this naturally causes the dollar to strengthen and as such purchases from america will become significantly more expensive. I don’t believe anything has dramatically changed in were the principle uk military security issues are, being primarily the euro and Atlantic regions will perhaps more emphasis to both Russian and Chinese involvement along North and west Africa and the change within nato of Sweden and Finland joining.

I don’t think that changes the principle areas we should look to invest in either namely

long range strike (surface to surface, air to surface and surface to air missiles)
Strategic transport
AAR
Intelligence gathering
And rapid deployment forces.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

mrclark303 wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 09:49
Rentaghost wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 08:34 Why would a new review be another exercise in cuts if Truss is serious about an increase in defence spending?
That's the crux of the situation...

Since the last Covid delayed SDSR, the acknowledged possible threat from Russia, has turned to real and direct threat to NATO.

The goal of 3% GDP on defence is broadly supported ( for the first time ever) by Labour too. So no matter who wins the 5 year bun fights, defence is looking to be back on a far more stable footing.

So, 3% GDP, an extra 12 billion 'ish' a year is a very substantial rise and should allow for a progressive 20 year rebuilding of our defence posture across the board.

My thoughts....

Army, 115,000

Rebuilding Armoured forces to a sensible level would be a priority along with increasing mobility and high technology equipment across the board.

5 Armoured Regiments 350 new MBT's with all the necessary Artillery support etc including 90 AH64E.

RAF, The RAF has been hit the hardest of the lot and is, in my opinion on the very edge of being considered an effective force.

So 12 fast jet squadrons of first rate updated Thypoon, giving way to Tempest, plus 'capable' loyal wingmen to boost numbers out to an effective 300 airframes combined.

Support Helicopter and Transport fleet sized appropriately to meet the requirements of an enlarged Army.

Royal Navy.

Rebuilding the escort fleet progressively to 40, displacement of types to be decided.

I would suggest

16 T26 as the core capability

12 Air Defence Destroyers

12 upgunned GP T31 with enhanced weapons fit.

12 SSN
4 SSBN

RFA sized to support

Amphibious capability rebuilt to allow an expanded Royal Marines to deploy as a Brigade and take on the new Commando Raider concept, so expanded to four Commandos, plus it's other roles, say 10,000 men.

Amphibious Helicopter support expanded to the required size.

FAA 4 squadrons of F35B, all Navy operated and capable Loyal Wingman to support them with suitable modifications to the QE class.

Plus's carrier based resupply and AAR. Types to be evaluated, manned/ unmanned.

A rough idea of where I think we should expand our capacity too with 3% sustained funding on defence over 20 years.
Whilst I would love to see that (40 RN escorts??!!) I think that is being very optimistic. I know you said that was IF we had 20 years of 3% Defence Spending p.a. - I would settle initially of 5 or so years of 3% Defence Spending p.a. to reverse the most serious of recent years cuts and to reduce / eliminate any current or future capability gaps.

I would be overjoyed if the RN could get to maybe 20 proper warfighting escorts (fully stocked with sufficent missiles to cover Anti Ship / Sub / Air and Land Attack) that could face a peer adversary, and then another 5-6 Patrol Frigates to cover the likes of Operation Kipion and patrolling BOT's etc.

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 "Financial Crisis" is going to impact defence spending. The fact that the UK's GDP is falling as a result of the Crisis is just foir starters. WIth other more politically sensitive Governmental Departments crying out for additional funds, what the Government say and what it actually does are going to be two different things. i do hope I am wrong in the way I see things moving forward, but reduced GDP plus increasing costs is not a good combination.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by mrclark303 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 21:29
mrclark303 wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 09:49
Rentaghost wrote: 23 Sep 2022, 08:34 Why would a new review be another exercise in cuts if Truss is serious about an increase in defence spending?
That's the crux of the situation...

Since the last Covid delayed SDSR, the acknowledged possible threat from Russia, has turned to real and direct threat to NATO.

The goal of 3% GDP on defence is broadly supported ( for the first time ever) by Labour too. So no matter who wins the 5 year bun fights, defence is looking to be back on a far more stable footing.

So, 3% GDP, an extra 12 billion 'ish' a year is a very substantial rise and should allow for a progressive 20 year rebuilding of our defence posture across the board.

My thoughts....

Army, 115,000

Rebuilding Armoured forces to a sensible level would be a priority along with increasing mobility and high technology equipment across the board.

5 Armoured Regiments 350 new MBT's with all the necessary Artillery support etc including 90 AH64E.

RAF, The RAF has been hit the hardest of the lot and is, in my opinion on the very edge of being considered an effective force.

So 12 fast jet squadrons of first rate updated Thypoon, giving way to Tempest, plus 'capable' loyal wingmen to boost numbers out to an effective 300 airframes combined.

Support Helicopter and Transport fleet sized appropriately to meet the requirements of an enlarged Army.

Royal Navy.

Rebuilding the escort fleet progressively to 40, displacement of types to be decided.

I would suggest

16 T26 as the core capability

12 Air Defence Destroyers

12 upgunned GP T31 with enhanced weapons fit.

12 SSN
4 SSBN

RFA sized to support

Amphibious capability rebuilt to allow an expanded Royal Marines to deploy as a Brigade and take on the new Commando Raider concept, so expanded to four Commandos, plus it's other roles, say 10,000 men.

Amphibious Helicopter support expanded to the required size.

FAA 4 squadrons of F35B, all Navy operated and capable Loyal Wingman to support them with suitable modifications to the QE class.

Plus's carrier based resupply and AAR. Types to be evaluated, manned/ unmanned.

A rough idea of where I think we should expand our capacity too with 3% sustained funding on defence over 20 years.
Whilst I would love to see that (40 RN escorts??!!) I think that is being very optimistic. I know you said that was IF we had 20 years of 3% Defence Spending p.a. - I would settle initially of 5 or so years of 3% Defence Spending p.a. to reverse the most serious of recent years cuts and to reduce / eliminate any current or future capability gaps.

I would be overjoyed if the RN could get to maybe 20 proper warfighting escorts (fully stocked with sufficent missiles to cover Anti Ship / Sub / Air and Land Attack) that could face a peer adversary, and then another 5-6 Patrol Frigates to cover the likes of Operation Kipion and patrolling BOT's etc.
Morning,

It's a really sad fact that a suggestion of 40 escorts now feels almost unreachable, it shows just how far we have drifted below critical mass.

However 40 would mean 30 operational ships, covering NATO, unilateral and new AUKUS related Pacific tasking.

The RN will be expected to fly the flag with something more capable than a River Class moving forward into the 2030's.

Taking the potential breadth of tasking into account, then even 40 is spreading thin!

It's the same with the Army, 115.000 is still a very small professional Army, but the continued slide in numbers makes it look like an almost impossible task!

The most worrying of all, is the current perilous state of the RAF, it's tiny pool of Typhoon mean we struggle to deploy and sustain a force of 12 aircraft, it's nothing short of a national disgrace....

In summary, a sustained 3% investment and decades will be needed to reverse the damage and rebalance back to a still small, but capable armed forces.
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by topman »

Unless Russia pushes into a NATO country i think all this talk of more equipment and manpower is nothing more than a pipedream. Come a fairly lengthy recession, military spending isn't going to be anywhere near the top of the list.

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

AUKUS is a technology development and information sharing pact its isn’t as military tasking one

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 10:18 AUKUS is a technology development and information sharing pact its isn’t as military tasking one
So far. What we have got is multiple treaties (for a whole variety of tasks) between 2/3/4/5 members that could, just possibly MIGHT coalesce into a more formal military treaty between several like minded nations.
A mini-NATO for the indo-Pacific if you will. As well as AUKUS we have:
-ANZUS
-Quad (US, Australia, India, Japan)
-FPDA (Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and UK)

Add Five Eyes (intelligence sharing between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, and US) and bilateral treaties between US and both Japan and Korea).

The point is that there are various organisational ties between th various countries likely to take a stance against China that we could yet a more formalised miltary alliance come together.

(Obviously if it does then UK might feel pushed into contributing more forces to Indo Pacific than a couple of River B2's and some Gurkhas and that is some way off bing remotely feasible other than the occasional visit from a UK CSG).

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 10:18 AUKUS is a technology development and information sharing pact its isn’t as military tasking one
I disagree, it actually represents nothing less than the foundation concrete pour of an East of Suez pivot, a reversal of the Wilson Governments 'retreat to Cyprus' policy of 1968.

Call me an optimist, but we are now seeing the utter folly of making defence a whipping boy and robbing it blind for decades.
Even Labour is promising 3% and sustained investment in defence, so there should hopefully be some continuity, as the Political parties pass the Government baton backwards and forwards for years to come .... Hopefully!!!

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 18:16
SW1 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 10:18 AUKUS is a technology development and information sharing pact its isn’t as military tasking one
I disagree, it actually represents nothing less than the foundation concrete pour of an East of Suez pivot, a reversal of the Wilson Governments 'retreat to Cyprus' policy of 1968.

Call me an optimist, but we are now seeing the utter folly of making defence a whipping boy and robbing it blind for decades.
Even Labour is promising 3% and sustained investment in defence, so there should hopefully be some continuity, as the Political parties pass the Government baton backwards and forwards for years to come .... Hopefully!!!
The UK has never left east of suez there’s been more forces stationed east of suez the past 20 years than ever with Afghanistan.

I would disagree with your characterisation of wiping boy, a very significant amount of money has been spent on defence every year, defence has been its own worst enemy for a significant period of time.

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 15:43
SW1 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 10:18 AUKUS is a technology development and information sharing pact its isn’t as military tasking one
So far. What we have got is multiple treaties (for a whole variety of tasks) between 2/3/4/5 members that could, just possibly MIGHT coalesce into a more formal military treaty between several like minded nations.
A mini-NATO for the indo-Pacific if you will. As well as AUKUS we have:
-ANZUS
-Quad (US, Australia, India, Japan)
-FPDA (Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and UK)

Add Five Eyes (intelligence sharing between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK, and US) and bilateral treaties between US and both Japan and Korea).

The point is that there are various organisational ties between th various countries likely to take a stance against China that we could yet a more formalised miltary alliance come together.

(Obviously if it does then UK might feel pushed into contributing more forces to Indo Pacific than a couple of River B2's and some Gurkhas and that is some way off bing remotely feasible other than the occasional visit from a UK CSG).
There has been a Asia equivalent of nato before it was called SEATO with Hq in Bangkok it fell apart. We don’t and can’t see any significant military presence future in Asia pacific occasion exercise maybe.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 18:55
mrclark303 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 18:16
SW1 wrote: 24 Sep 2022, 10:18 AUKUS is a technology development and information sharing pact its isn’t as military tasking one
I disagree, it actually represents nothing less than the foundation concrete pour of an East of Suez pivot, a reversal of the Wilson Governments 'retreat to Cyprus' policy of 1968.

Call me an optimist, but we are now seeing the utter folly of making defence a whipping boy and robbing it blind for decades.
Even Labour is promising 3% and sustained investment in defence, so there should hopefully be some continuity, as the Political parties pass the Government baton backwards and forwards for years to come .... Hopefully!!!
The UK has never left east of suez there’s been more forces stationed east of suez the past 20 years than ever with Afghanistan.

I would disagree with your characterisation of wiping boy, a very significant amount of money has been spent on defence every year, defence has been its own worst enemy for a significant period of time.
We will probably have to agree to disagree SW1, the pointless Sandbox wars are more of a Bush/ Blair diversion in central Asia that have accomplished absolutely nothing but to destabilise the whole region and empower Iran ...

The years of fighting in Afghanistan caused untold damage to our armed forces, as precious resources were pulled away to underpin and fund a substantial presence in that barren Waistland.

I am taking about a pivot towards the Indian and Pacific oceans.

As far as defence spend, it was party balloons and ice-cream when we managed 2%GDP, it's no where near the required levels of defense and part of the entirely made up and fictitious post war peace dividend...

3% is a sensible level of spending and a great deal can be done with sustained spending at that level on the right force disposition and equipment for our needs.

Post Reply