Mil News UK Integrated Review 2021

[Cron]

Thought I'd get a thread underway because of the imminent release of what promises to be another doozy. If you think this should be merged with any existing thread, please crack on.

As a warm up, link below to the House of Commons Defence Committee publication about the state of UK Armoured Capability. This is the online version - PDFs are available.

Obsolescent and outgunned: the British Army’s armoured vehicle capability

Popcorn at the ready...

 

[Fluff]

Thought I'd get a thread underway because of the imminent release of what promises to be another doozy. If you think this should be merged with any existing thread, please crack on.

As a warm up, link below to the House of Commons Defence Committee publication about the state of UK Armoured Capability. This is the online version - PDFs are available.

Obsolescent and outgunned: the British Army’s armoured vehicle capability

Popcorn at the ready...

An interesting read, and a good summary.

Some of the tails do raise some concerns, we seem to spend a lot of money talking, rather than making, such as Warrior upgrade.

Also some of the logic is barmy, 'overmatch'. If a tank meets a IFV, the IFV is overmatched. If an IFV meets another IFV maybe it is maybe not, but if one crew spots the other first, then it can be different outcome. - just sounds like a reason to spend a lot of money.

You can spend a fortune, it still wont tell you who we will fight with, what they will do, or what they will develop next.

Better to identify the weakpoints in our kit, and fix it. Warrior needed a stabilised turret, instead of getting one, we paid people to develop it, and develop a new gun and new ammo, and its not here.

 

[BCNTM]

Thought I'd get a thread underway because of the imminent release of what promises to be another doozy. If you think this should be merged with any existing thread, please crack on.

As a warm up, link below to the House of Commons Defence Committee publication about the state of UK Armoured Capability. This is the online version - PDFs are available.

Obsolescent and outgunned: the British Army’s armoured vehicle capability

Popcorn at the ready...

My feeling has always been cut foreign aid to zero and spend the extra on defence

We need to decide first who we are going to be fighting and how much damage we need to do to them

 

[Fluff]

Interesting(to me) that their only recent report is on Army vehicles??

Nothing on RAF, crewed v unmanned? F35 or more Typhoon?

Subs V frigates?

 

[Cron]

Interesting(to me) that their only recent report is on Army vehicles??

Nothing on RAF, crewed v unmanned? F35 or more Typhoon?

Subs V frigates?

The Select Committee report looks to only focus on Army capability, specifically a subset of the Combat platforms. The Integrated Review will be (or should be!) covering the full panopoly of capability across the arms.

Regarding force development, books have been and will continue to be written about the shift in mass and changing utility of our doctrine, materiel and outcomes. We still suffer the capability gap that wringing every last hour of service life out of our kit delivers - hence being at least a generation behind in many of our platforms. This retention of obsolescent kit exacerbates the issues arising from trying to integrate contemporary systems onto the inadequate underlying architectures, and the increasingly deep money-pit that typically accompanies these kind of programmes. There are issues that I am well aware of but will not discuss in public forum - suffice to say the report I linked earlier only scratches the surface.

The report also mentions in passing the level of competence within the various MoD agencies without acknowleding the fact that industry will cherry-pick the most capable staff and offer them a better package to jump the fence - it's not a case of 'pay peanuts and get monkeys' (I know many very capable people on the Crown side of the boundary) but more that once they finally do succumb to the temptations on offer they are effectively lost to the authority due to commercial constraints - you want that expertise again, you better hope that their new employer wins the contract!

Couple this with a more 'commercial' take on what the logistic and stores capacity is for the force (think 'just in time' to minimise capital expenditure versus the older contingency-based approach) and it all comes together at a point that stresses, if not outright fractures, the realities of what we can do versus what we'd like to do. We use the terms 'threshold' and 'objective' to describe our requirements for the minimum acceptable and desirable level of performance. My biggest concern is the growing gap between what we can do and our threshold requirement. The further you fall behind on meeting your threshold capability, the greater the risk of the whole endeavour being pointless!

 

[Flagg]

The UK is in a very tough spot.

Ultimately, what underpins UK Force structure, capacity, and capability is the economy that pays for it.

And the UK has been hit with a perfect storm that isn’t exactly hyperbole.

In the dark days of the 70’s/80’s economic pivot by the UK, while it lost manufacturing jobs and profits, it gained oil&gas jobs and profits as well as City Finance jobs&profits.

The result was pretty solid, even if very light on replacement well paying working class jobs.

Today’s challenge is that the UK has been hit worse than any other 1st world western nation by CV19 in terms of GDP loss(and output gap recovery required).

And this is compounded by UK departure from EU with Brexit, as the EU is going to be working very hard to kneecap The City’s finance profits and shift them to the Continental EU.

Elected MPs when they have to choose what to cut, associated voting is going to play heavily.

For UK Forces, I suspect it’s going to be spun like Orwell’s chocolate ration going up from 25 to 20 grams a month.

I can imagine UK Forces can put on a brave face and sell it like a low budget version of USMC‘s fundamental/granular doctrinal change, completely getting rid of tanks and changing to a UAV over gun based rifle section.

I would imagine words like agility, adaptability, fast follower, and innovation will play heavily in the lipstick placed on the pig.

Leaner(fewer pers), lighter(less stuff), meaner(more joint coalition fires type talk) is what I‘d expect.

Big ticket items like Dreadnaught could be a wild fight, but losing it means the UK loses its rearward looking UN Permanent Security Council credibility.

Slashing F35B numbers would place HMS QE/POW at risk unless coalition air wing policy is employed.

On this forum, we tend to look at the tactical level stuff.

But the reality is UK strategic power is projected via a combination of Trident deterrent and City of London financial firepower within a framework of the US/UK special relationship.

That triad is at risk.

 

[Fluff]

I dont take quite such a pessemistic approach, some of the plans are clearly wonky, we have 600 warrior, we buy 500 ajax and 500 boxer, and still keep FV432 as well? If Warrior is gone, are we moving ajax into its place?

For definite we stay as a nuclear power, in todays world no-one is going to walk away from that.

I'd really like to see 'the plan'. So peer v peer eastern europe, whats our role? If its fighters and drones, then ok, but whats the backup - are we keeping 100 typhoon as a reserve? and 1000 missiles? and paying Easyjet to train their pilots?

Other than that its anti-terror etc, so mrap's, drones, etc.

If that leaves home defense to the TA, then ok, but the TA will need tanks, and armour for this.

Of course the UK economy looks a little wonky at the moment, Brexit and covid at the same time is going to do that, but looking at Boris, he's not shy of spending, and we may as well get some shiny toys, rather than just pay dole.

Lets see what tomorrow brings.

 

[Fluff]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/969402/The_Integrated_Review_of_Security__Defence__Development_and_Foreign_Policy.pdf

 

[Gaz]

I've only had a really quick look through it, but can't seen any actual justification for removing the cap on number of warheads? I don't really get the difference between us having 180 or 260, other than one will presumably cost us an awful lot more money?

 

[Fluff]

I've only had a really quick look through it, but can't seen any actual justification for removing the cap on number of warheads? I don't really get the difference between us having 180 or 260, other than one will presumably cost us an awful lot more money?

Possibly not that much - we have the material, as we did have more than that. I'm guessing that the existing number is good to deter either Russia or China - but not both. Also guessing that anti-BM are expected to wipe out a good % of our shots, so more shots are needed.

Now have to wait until 22 Mar for the defense detail.

 

[Flagg]

I've only had a really quick look through it, but can't seen any actual justification for removing the cap on number of warheads? I don't really get the difference between us having 180 or 260, other than one will presumably cost us an awful lot more money?

Looks like no more than 225, then no more than 180, now no more than 260.

Interesting numbers. Not including penetration aids/decoys.

It does make me wonder about the upside/downside(nuke or no nuke?) of conventional warhead prompt global strike SLBMs.

Solid platinum priced warheads on foreheads for those ‘blank check targets’ that can’t be, or don’t need to be, nuked.

Good to see commitment to Dreadnaught nuclear deterrent. It will be interesting to see if there’s any backlash for the potential “44% increase in nukes!”

48 F35B “at a minimum” sounds like it leaves the door open for 60.

Pretty impressive writing and editorial covering broad brush stroke intent/themes as well as the cornerstone capabilities and relationships, leaving the granular organisational detail and bloodletting for later.

They definitely recognised the optimisation for global hyper competition bit. UK has been on the receiving end of that longer than the US.

The soft power part makes sense in a Three Warfares optimised world, but with extremely limited financial firepower allocated to it.

 

[Cron]

This initial release has clearly been put through the spin cycle a few times. I'm awaiting the guts of it all - the ORBAT implications are the thing that I have a professional interest in. That is, of course, assuming it isn't delayed again!

 

[Fluff]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/971859/_CP_411__-_Defence_in_a_competitive_age.pdf

 

[Cron]

Linked is the latest output from main building. Just about to have a look through, and may well log this as time spent at work!

Corporate report - Defence in a Competitive Age

(Edit- Fluff wins by a nose)

 

[Cron]

Well, I hope Lockheed Martin didn't put too many of their eggs in the Warrior CSP New Turret basket...

 

[Fluff]

Well, I hope Lockheed Martin didn't put too many of their eggs in the Warrior CSP New Turret basket...

No but they get some more F35

I had to look up exactor - its NLOS, on a dinky little trailer.

Old Hawks are going, assume BAe will do a sponsorship deal on some new hawks.

challenger 3 - remainder 'retired'

I still cant believe they cant make something from the warriors, like an armoured logistics vehicle. Assume Jordan will buy them, or Latvia?

Navy seems to do well, apparently we are joining the USMC in the pacific.

 

[Cron]

No but they get some more F35

I had to look up exactor - its NLOS, on a dinky little trailer.

Old Hawks are going, assume BAe will do a sponsorship deal on some new hawks.

challenger 3 - remainder 'retired'

I still cant believe they cant make something from the warriors, like an armoured logistics vehicle. Assume Jordan will buy them, or Latvia?

Navy seems to do well, apparently we are joining the USMC in the pacific.

Different LM on the F-35, it's LMUK that'll take the hit on CSP. So unless we get 397 more turreted Ajax to make up the shortfall...

Regards CR2, still unsure whether 'retired' means mothballed/strategic reserve or cannibalised. The guys at Bovington enjoy playing with Megatron, maybe they will have a few more donor hulls now? MBTs are expensive to deep-store, can't just abandon them out in a field somewhere.

Warrior is a nightmare, and I know plenty of colleagues who will be happy that the open secret is now formally out there. Talk of conversion into an ASV (and the potential to finally put the FV43x series out to pasture) is just that - problem is the underlying architecture just doesn't lend itself to a future digitised force. CR2 LEP is taxing enough, but at least it has radios etc. in the turret as well so the whole upgrade is kind of self-contained to a larger extent without having to extensively upgrade the RBJ.

I've still got to look into RN/RAF capability (and by extension, the impact across arms) and ORBAT implications. That'll wait until tomorrow.

It's all a money pit, and we've already burned too much on pish like Test & Trace. The current tranche of platform procurement is much more forward facing, and I note the absence in the detail of a few key programmes. Still, can't make the job for foreign intelligence services too easy, can we? They'll still have to go digging themselves if they want to find out what our cloaked orbital destructobeam is really capable of.

 

[Fluff]

Different LM on the F-35, it's LMUK that'll take the hit on CSP. So unless we get 397 more turreted Ajax to make up the shortfall...

Regards CR2, still unsure whether 'retired' means mothballed/strategic reserve or cannibalised. The guys at Bovington enjoy playing with Megatron, maybe they will have a few more donor hulls now? MBTs are expensive to deep-store, can't just abandon them out in a field somewhere.

Warrior is a nightmare, and I know plenty of colleagues who will be happy that the open secret is now formally out there. Talk of conversion into an ASV (and the potential to finally put the FV43x series out to pasture) is just that - problem is the underlying architecture just doesn't lend itself to a future digitised force. CR2 LEP is taxing enough, but at least it has radios etc. in the turret as well so the whole upgrade is kind of self-contained to a larger extent without having to extensively upgrade the RBJ.

I've still got to look into RN/RAF capability (and by extension, the impact across arms) and ORBAT implications. That'll wait until tomorrow.

It's all a money pit, and we've already burned too much on pish like Test & Trace. The current tranche of platform procurement is much more forward facing, and I note the absence in the detail of a few key programmes. Still, can't make the job for foreign intelligence services too easy, can we? They'll still have to go digging themselves if they want to find out what our cloaked orbital destructobeam is really capable of.

I'm hoping those new chally turrets would fit a Leo2/3? hull in the future.....Just a suggestion to the vicelord admiral from a guy that used to clean canopies for a living.

RAF doesnt look too bad, a bit of tidying up on old types, BAe146 already gone, the hercs need an overhaul so they will go to Africa somewhere, we committed to too many A400 so we have to take them. Some form of commitment to F35, not surprising as we build all the rudders, so we cant let that go. Swanky new missiles, and radar for typhoon, again assume the old typhoons will be sold. Given how blunt the sharp end was a few years ago, its not bad, and fundamentally better than most countries.

I'm assuming some of the Ajax will actually 'replace' warrior, as the overall size of the army comes down, so less ajax actually needed v the order.

Navy gets the kit to support the carrier force, and some cheaper frigates to get the hull numbers up. Does make sense, and we cant gold plate everything.

 

[downsizer]

RAF doesnt look too bad, a bit of tidying up on old types, BAe146 already gone, the hercs need an overhaul so they will go to Africa somewhere, we committed to too many A400 so we have to take them. Some form of commitment to F35, not surprising as we build all the rudders, so we cant let that go. Swanky new missiles, and radar for typhoon, again assume the old typhoons will be sold. Given how blunt the sharp end was a few years ago, its not bad, and fundamentally better than most countries.

Disagree.

E3 binned early - replaced by only 3 E7. Not enough. Minimum 2 year gap between them.
C130Js were good till 2035 after rewing boxing. Loads of life left.
22 A400s can't do the same as ~15 Js and maintain their current tasklines.
Loads of niche things the A400 can't do that vanish with the J, plus it's too big.
Protector to be 16 - at the last review was at least 20.
25 T1 typhoons binned. Still have a use as red air and QRA.

 

[muck]

Speaking of that new Ranger Regiment, I didn't realise that designation had a tradition in the British military.

This entire reform has an unusual air about it. In a day and age when everybody seems to want to refocus on all-out conventional war again, the Johnson administration prefers a more expeditionary approach me thinks.