The UK Government is seeking public input on the newly launched Strategic Defence Review, seeking views on how the nation’s armed forces should adapt to meet the evolving challenges of the 21st century.
This initiative is part of a broader effort, with the Government saying it aims to ensure that UK Defence remains central to the country’s security, economic growth, and prosperity.
“The UK faces threats that are growing and diversifying: war in Europe; conflict in the Middle East; states across the world that are increasingly acting in ways that challenge regional and global stability as well as our values and interests; terrorist groups; hybrid attacks; and instability caused by climate change.
Therefore, on 16 July 2024, the Prime Minister launched a Strategic Defence Review (SDR) to ensure the United Kingdom is both secure at home and strong abroad – now and for the years to come.
It is to be Britain’s review – not just the Government’s – so will consult serving military, veterans, MPs of all parties, industry, and academia.
The SDR will be headed by three external Reviewers in a first-of-its-kind for UK defence:
- Lord Robertson – Former Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General (Review lead)
- Dr Fiona Hill CMG – Foreign policy expert and former US presidential advisor
- General Sir Richard Barrons – Former Commander Joint Forces Command and former Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff”
This call for views, they say, sets out specific propositions to be answered that will help a team of reviewers.
“You are invited to provide responses to each of the propositions in the portal link no later than 30 September 2024. You will be allowed to submit up to 500 words per proposition. This should be submitted through this portal only. Please note you cannot submit a response more than once.”
Here’s a summary of the main questions posed to the public:
- Strategic Context: Respondents are asked to describe the strategic and operational context for UK Defence from 2024 to 2050.
- Defence Roles: The Government is looking for prioritised suggestions on the roles that UK Defence should fulfil during the period from 2024 to 2040.
- Defence Capabilities: Feedback is sought on the necessary defence capabilities required to perform these roles, distinguishing between those needed for ongoing commitments and those for crisis mobilisation.
- Current Capability Assessment: Participants should evaluate how existing defence capabilities align with the identified roles and highlight any critical gaps.
- Urgent Attention Areas: The public is invited to identify areas that require immediate focus to address strategic risks or vulnerabilities, particularly in logistics and medical support.
- NATO Contribution: Suggestions on how the UK Defence can enhance its contributions to NATO, including defence export potential, are requested.
- Support for Ukraine: Respondents are asked to describe how current support for Ukraine integrates with UK Defence activities and propose measures to sustain this support through at least 2027.
- Integrated Force Concept: The review seeks insights on advancing UK Defence from a multi-domain to an integrated force concept, including key characteristics and non-kinetic resources.
- Homebase Security: Proposals are needed on securing the UK Defence homebase during crises and ensuring mobilisation capabilities.
- Digital Transformation: Feedback is sought on how UK Defence can lead in adopting Digital Age technologies across all domains.
- Industry Relationships: Respondents should propose ways for UK Defence to build sustainable relationships with technology providers and industry.
- Modernisation of Acquisition: The Government is looking for recommendations on modernising defence acquisition to keep pace with technology and enhance interoperability.
- Workforce Balance: Suggestions are sought on achieving an optimal mix of personnel across all tasks and mobilisations, including recruitment and retention measures.
- Digital Enablement: The public is asked to propose digital strategies that would enable an Integrated Force across all domains.
- Education and Training: Insights into how education and training can support the needs of an Integrated Force are requested, including technology application.
- Maritime, Land, and Air Development: Respondents should recommend measures for the modernisation of the maritime, land, and air domains as part of an Integrated Force.
- Special Forces Development: Suggestions on how UK Special Forces can be developed in support of national security are requested.
- Defence Medical Services: The Government is looking for input on how medical services can meet operational demands effectively.
- Defence Estate Utilisation: Recommendations for improving the utilisation and condition of Defence Estates, including living accommodations, are sought.
- Financial Management: The public is invited to propose improvements in financial management and administration across Defence.
- International Relationships: Suggestions on building strategic relationships with allies and partners are requested.
- Cultural Review: Finally, the review invites each branch of the armed forces to assess their culture and training practices to ensure they align with modern warfare imperatives.
Please no-one say ‘cats and traps’ FFS.
Not cancelling anything already in development would be a good start.
New IFV = Warrior upgraded.
Not much left to cancel. We stopped developing equipment in 2010, now we just buy American.
Not true. We also buy German, Israeli, French …
I think I’ll add that developing and making our own hardware is often still better than buying off the shelf even if it appears not as good/dearer.
May be true(ish) for the RAF but no so for the RN and Army.
Dogs and cages…😇
Id say give Warrior to Ukraine and get the CV90 IFV ordered in- fit all armoured vehicles entering a combat zone with APS as well whilst they are at it.
In an ideal world of unlimited budgets I’d agree. In the reality of this SDR I expect your proposal would be countered with 1. What do you propose cutting from the Defence (Army) budget to pay for this? or 2. Would you rather have (say) 120 CV90s or 300 upgraded Warrior?
This should add a few more years to any actual decisions.
Finally, an opportunity to get them to disband the Royal Air Force…. The experiment has gone on long enough. Time to let the real fighting forces get on with it. I’m joking. NATO commitment should be an all-arms, full spectrum Joint war fighting division plus HQ ARRC. This should be a proper Armoured Division with sufficient mass to force generate with battlefield casualty replacements. This is the real value that the British Army provides for NATO, a proper war fighting army with all of the staff planning, logistics and fighting power that goes with it. I’d then have a lighter,… Read more »
Bang on in my view. 3 UK being that Division, and continue to expand 1 UK to be OOA backup. We know the shortcomings. I looked at the questionnaire and the questions are pretty intense. Simply submitting a contribution along the lines of “Stop cutting, you idiots” is not an option. I’m reluctant as the last times I did this they went ahead and cut anyway, regardless of the no doubt valuable inputs joe public, and ex military may have made. I also suspect it is window dressing and it would make no difference this time, even if thousands wrote… Read more »
I agree, even MP’s and senior service personnel will have little if any input. Keir starmer will be deciding if their is any grand strategy and their probably won’t be any as their is neither the money or the appetite for a Blair style foreign policy. The rest will be decided by the defence chiefs and the treasury as per usual.
Well I think I’m going to have a go. I just hope they will let me save and pickup where I left off, that’s a lot of questions for a single sitting…
Cheers CR
I’m not sure I agree anymore, 3 years ago I would have. The reason is the rather nuanced first 2 questions. What are prioritised threats to the U.K. 2024-40 and 2024-50. Fact is 3 years ago I’d have looked at NATO and said yes we need a proper all arms Armoured Division with strength in depth to bolster Eastern Europe, because it’s vulnerable. But Mr Putin has pretty well negated that need, he prodded the Ants nest and woke up the traditional Land Army’s of Europe to rearm and expand. So can someone can tell me that UK turning up… Read more »
Because even with the “Traditional Land Armies” a proper Armoured Division is actually quite rare within Europe. I did a count recently and it’s single digits, so adding another division is actually a significant contribution.
Not sure why anyone thinks that defending Norway and Sweden will require smaller or lighter forces, that’s a truism that got developed when we where going to be doing mountain warfare in Norwegian Fjords, but the strategic situation has shifted, and now we’ll be fighting on the flat lands of northern Sweden and Finland. That’s large open maneuver warfare country.
If a million people wrote in saying “stop cutting, you idiots”, perhaps it would have an effect, but only if it became public knowledge.
Is it window dressing? Probably. Will I write anyway? Well, first I have to think about what I need to say. At the end of the day though, as polished and erudite as I might make it, it still won’t be as valuable as “stop cutting, you idiots” would be, if only heeded.
😂😂😂
Hiya Daniele
I wonder if there is merit in some form of a collective submission? Might George be keen to put forward a petition response, endorsed by UKDJ members (perhaps e signatures)?
Unsure about the mechanics and logistics of this tough .
A collective UKDJ response! I like it.
Imagine UKDJ on the SDSR board 😆
Excellent idea, totally agree…
oh yeah! 😉
http s://i.imgur. com/k7IE359. jpeg
As ever, feel free to pick apart or find errors.
Morning mate.
I’ll look at this later when on a PC, cannot on my mobile.
Background this is mostly to show what is achievable if we invested a bit in CS and CSS units to enable us to fully utilize the forces we have.
Obviously open season for all, not just Daniele.
👌
Sorry Dern, I’m not getting anything. What am I doing wrong?
I have copied and pasted that address and I get nothing.
You need to remove all the spaces I put into it (to get around the moderation filter).
Ok.
Evening mate. Superb as always. I was going to ask where 1 Av Bde was then found it and the StratCom units lower down. It has the sort of CS CSS expansion I dream of, I wonder how much this would cost and what extra manpower would be required to establish them? Gentle corrections, as I would not insult your work, all I can observe at first glance is: 4 AMR? Is that also not a new Regiment? I thought 4 was lost when the RAMC was reorganised a few years ago. ISR Bde with ARRC assume you meant 1… Read more »
It would be expensive, but not too expensive. I think it’s 8 new regular units (10 if you aren’t using 3 CMDO’s old CS units). So average 400 pax per unit (some will be smaller some larger, 400 seems a good average) and you’ve got a 3,200 headcount increase (plus another 400 or so reservists for a AR Air defence unit for 1 UK XX). The real cost in this plan is equipment: An extra 56 Challengers, an extra Boxer Battalion, 5 Boxer 155 Regiments, an extra MLRS regiment, trucks and 4x4s for the 2 Light Brigades, and all the… Read more »
I agree.
I have never really liked how the army ORBATs itself but I guess it’s financial constraints.
Even a 73k army should be able to find more all arms deployable Bdes than just 4 or 5 if one includes Strike.
Technically it’s six (19 L). But 19 at the moment is just a holding bag for a LOT of AR units, which is basically the army saying “We don’t believe we’ll ever deploy formed AR units so, we’ll just put them here to draw on as a pool of people as and when and dish them out.”
Yep, I was really homing in on Bdes with a full set of CS CSS.
I don’t like 19 at all, it reminds me too much of what 1 UK was when formed, an awkward”golf bag” of 7 infantry Bdes only 2 if which were deployable.
And just as I’ve got my head round the FS ORBAT it might well change again!
Great to see the dialogue between you and Dern! With the old rule of thumb of 70% of the army being in the Field Force, that would be 51k out-of the 73k.
Got to then add in the AR. I agree you could probably get more than 4 or 5 deployable brigades, but not too many more, given that there are many troops outside a brigade organisation.
Evening Graham.
Thank you. Yes, I think many do not realise how many personnel go into brigades outside the all arms ones in 1 and 3 Div and in the wider non deployable areas of the army without which it wouldn’t function.
Bit like the moans on brass and MoD CS, the wider organisation is vast, and necessary.
The Army is now too small, simply.
Thanks mate. Its just like everything alse – not everyone who works for a railway company is ‘front line’!
Spot on mate, it’s more hammering the square peg into the round hole.
Good Morning Daniele. I took part in a similar survey way back in the early 2000’s. I said they shouldn’t even think of cancelling the QEC’s on which they had already spent about 400 million pounds at that time, and that they should order some more upgraded OPV’s to relieve the Frigate fleet from lower end duties. They adopted both my suggestions😂😂
Good morning my friend! 😀✋
Thing is our politicians are completely adverse to sending soldiers anywhere and for good reason as it rarely works out well and the only conceivable land threat to Europe’s army seems unable to work at any level of combined arms warfare beyond 1915 Doctrine and is currently being invaded by the poorest country in Europe with little difficulty. Meanwhile the Airforce has been in near constant contact with enemies since the laser guided bomb was invented. I think you’re right about the UK providing a division but that’s 25,000 of soldiers. A force of 75,000 or so should easily be… Read more »
The interesting thing is, an Army of 106,000 had to bring everyone out to generate a Division for the invasion of Iraq, and that only had two Armoured Brigades.
The field Army is a much smaller proportion of the total force than people often realise. So whilst 75,000 looks like it could easily generate a Division, the reality is quite different.
But I also think it needs to come with the joint capabilities – Cyber, Air, aviation manoeuvre etc under a single force commander (a bit like a USMC MEU)
We always used the yardstick that 70% of the reg army was in the Field Force.
‘Bring everyone out’. Not sure I follow.
Certainly some units in that Div would have been understrength and on top of that you bolster units from PE (Peace Establishment) to WE (War Establishment), so robbing Peter to pay Paul was required, but I think you exaggerate a bit.
Are you a talking about Granby?
Because for Op Granby the limiting factor wasn’t so much manpower, it was more that the Army was geared for fighting just outside it’s bases in Germany, and suddenly having to deploy a division to Iraq meant scrambling to work out how to get stuff out there.
In Telic part of the issue was that for political reasons 16 Air Assault Brigade was sent in place of a Mechanised Brigade. Basically someone was eager to let the Paras have a run out in their new operating concept.
Jim, I am amazed that you think our politicians are adverse to sending soldiers anywhere. Maybe deployments since late 2014 (end of Op HERRICK) have been thin on the ground but not before then. There are currently deployments of army personnel (aside from training activities) to many overseas locations, perhaps the most significant being the eFP missions in Estonia and Poland. The army does far more than contributing a warfighting division to NATO. That should not be their only role. How much of the RAF and RN do you consider are currently deployed? I am sure you overstate the amount… Read more »
Gotta say they’ve not felt thin on the ground.
Fair point. I really meant major deployments (larger than single unit strength).
I think Jim means, the new, socialist left leaning ones now, so Starmer, that many feel wish to withdraw the UK from worldwide operations.
I too had that belief, as you know. I’ll be pleased to see that I’m wrong.
For that to happen, post SDR, I need to see our bases overseas beyond European NATO maintained, the UKCF deployed, the ASOB deployed, the UKSF deployed, in the theatre’s they are now.
We will see.
Thanks mate. Some of our forces are already deployed overseas on ops – eg Op Tosca (UNFICYP), Op Cabrit (NATO eFP in Estonia, Poland), NATO air policing missions, anti piracy operations (RN, various locations) etc.
Hard to weadle out of those.
A new ‘war of choice’? Maybe Starmer would opt out deploying our forces, even if it upset the Americans who would undoubtedly be leading it.
Yes, it’s your last paragraph that is key.
Big deployments that did not involve an existential threat to us, having seen what happened to Iraq and Afghan hard to argue for it.
But we need to maintain the capability for it, if it is necessary.
Afghan was a NATO Article 5 deployment following the 9/11 attack. So not really a war of choice.
Iraq was Blair’s ridiculous war of choice to impress Bush.
That’s true, I often forget that. Though I think even without NATO Blair would have followed the US in?
Yes, that’s probably true. I seem to recall that 42 nations deployed forces of one size or another to Afghan, so it was certainly NATO++.
[BTW, I no longer get notifications by email of replies to my posts – do you know how to get that re-established. I didn’t get an answer when I emails the UKDJ office].
Oh dear WTF is this? I’ll bet no one asks me it will be all his leftie leaning folk so goodbye to ALL defence spending and give to all the illegals🙄
Oops should read whole article before sounding off🙄😂
Here is my input, if it’s an independent enquiry headed by outside parties why is one of them a General in the British Army.
Seriously what is independent about that.
If you are talking about General Sir Richard Barrons, he is not a member of the government and he has been retired for 8 years now. It even says above that he is a “Former Commander Joint Forces Command and former Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff”………
Having someone who knows people and can work with MOD on their input is no bad thing. Independence shouldn’t mean ignorance.
Would recommend everyone who cares about defence does this.
I will do my piece (anonymously, of course) as soon as I get back to a proper keyboard, but have had a look at the page.
They are asking the right questions, but be willing to spend an afternoon filling the thing out, it’s quite long!
Don’t put you age (just sayin) 😎
Looking at the areas on which public input is requested, they seem to require a lot of knowledge of how matters are currently conducted, which few members of the general public possess.
With so many recent defence reviews and command papers, the whole exercise seems rather unnecessary and the consultation a bit of a gimmick. Perhaps it’s just a cunning plan to spread the blame when cuts are made?
The exercise is even more questionable unless and until government indicates how much ( additional) funding could be made available.
Perhaps it’s just a cunning plan to spread the blame when cuts are made?
So kinda a family fortunes for defence… . want a new 6th gen fighter?…. our survey says
😃
Or in Corbyn style- ” John from Milton Keynes says we don’t need aircraft carriers”
Making the questions more in depth should hopefully filter out the people who barely have a passing interest and would say we need 17 aircraft carriers and 5,000 tanks.
NATO Contributions. Suggestions on how the UK Defence can enhance its contributions to NATO, including defence export potential, are requested.
So we’re not planning to export outside NATO? I would have thought a government with a growth agenda would have dedicated a single topic on how to grow global defence exports to all allies.
“how the UK Defence can enhance its contributions to NATO”.
Probably best not by cutting even further what little we do bring to the table.
errr what? Just what does the general public know? Even us in our self proclaimed wisdom! If you ask me, sounds like an exercise in identifying what would be acceptable to cut, or at least create the least amount of furor!
Agreed
We all settled on “Boaty Macboatface” but they never listened !
⛴
But fair shout to actually allow us all have a say.
They listened. They named one of the boats RSS Attenborough carries Boaty McBoatface. Listenening doesn’t mean agreeing.
Erm, they were asking for a name for the Ship itself, Boaty was the general consensus but they ignored that and went on to call it RSS Sir David Attenborough whilst giving a rather small AV the name that was the vote winner.
Listening seems to be in competition with asking.
Basically, they asked but didn’t like the answer so ignored it and that’s how this all works in our so called Democracy.
As much as I love SRA, I will always think of this ship as BM.
And they were a “Mickey Mouse” government.
Well. Ninety eight per cent of the british public, and I’m being generous, couldn’t care less so it’s down to us guys.
I’ve submitted to the last three SDR’s and you can tell I have been hugely successful🙄but if you don’t do you don’t get.
Exactly; they have provided a framework to guide your thinking so make use of it and put the effort in – contribute. There’s probably more expertise and creative ideas out there than we think and they will be keen to gauge opinion on the topic areas.
Couldn’t agree with you more. Even if you don’t succeed at least you’ve had your tuppence worth. 🙂
Please no one take my comment as a personal affront to their levels of knowledge but seriously? Who are the members of the “public” who could actually answer some of those issues with any level of real world wisdom? I read articles from both here and Navy Lookout, in fact I cancelled my subscription to Warships IFR because I was learning more from the comments posted against the articles here than from the authors in the magazine. I consider myself to know a little more than a “average” member of the public but 1. that’s based pretty much solely around… Read more »
An interesting read Ken, good post. I must confess I find Warships Op ed (Odin’s eye) a little tedious banging on the RN needs more and more. I get they are a lobby voice , but being an ex air force type, you’ll excuse me for my natural bias.😉
What’s the public know about defence?? I fear irrational results at best.
The cruel reality is the UK’s pension for playing above its weight resulting in three vital services stretched and under funded. This review will only lead to a melange of ideas resulting in a muddled outcome. Labour has no intention of placing defence spending before vital public services, the only differences this time to previous reviews is World events, which are worsening by the day. Only when Europe starts to be targeted by long range rockets will the penny finally drop. There is no real air defence against ballistic weapons and there by, we are exposed but not necessarily from… Read more »
What a pathetic stance.
I think the government should make the decisions based on facts and their informed opinions and that of their heads of forces & security services.
No member of the public is party to all the knowledge they will be nor experienced enough to make any long term decisions.
Merely an attempt to elongate & obfuscate the process and ultmately absolve themselves of any responsibility.
They are the ones paid to govern and make difficult and strategic decisions not some white van man down the pub or some university proffesor whos course is funded by China.
John Healey worked in Housing and Health before taking on the Shadow Defence portfolio in 2020. Many of us have been commenting on this and other defence websites far longer (not to mention George who has written most of UKJD for over a decade). Mr Healey also hasn’t been party to all the information until last month. Yet as DefSec he will be asked to input into all the decisions, making many of them. And he’s amongst the best informed of the current government. So if you are interested enough to comment, maybe you are interesting enough to be listened… Read more »
Government has the mandate to make these decisions.
I’m not really sure what this is meant to achieve – but it’s not meant to flesh out a coherent strategy nevermind a viable procurmemt policy.
However I’m sure there are many armchair admirals/generals/chief marshals on here who would have their say ,but naught but an handfull even I would listen to never mind the government.
As I said ..what a load of bolox.
Total EU stitch-up incoming :(Keith
The Government could build industrial estates on edge of MOD land to provide income from rent and help new businesses to start up. Army could charge civilians money to drive old vehicles like CVRT to generate money on MOD land .
The government asks public for views on new defence review.
Public: Internet… haha how can we turn this into a meme?Under the Arrangements for the Review section, item nine says it all for me. “9. The Reviewers will select a small Defence Review Team (DRT) to support their work. The DRT will comprise senior experts from inside and outside Defence, working closely with other Government Departments, notably HM Treasury.” The Parameters that are or will be set in place, are dominated by the Labour Party’s Manifesto pledge, that the Government “will set out the path to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence”, says it all. I had thought that they were looking at getting to 3% as soon… Read more »
that is a good observation Tom. “we will set out the path to spending 2.5 per cent of GDP on defence” is political code for twice the square root of nothing.
The Labour Government has never said 3%.
I wonder what Stammer would do if a large number of respondents suggested the biggest threat to the UK is uncontrolled immigration and militant Islam.
Plus unrestrained, unregulated capitalism.
Maybe… we could suggest to mr stammer, to increase the infantry, by forming a right wing, thuggery penal battalion. Just a thought…
He’d ignore it. Just as he and others before him are doing, right now.
How about working out what our defence strategy should be, what we want to do then what personnel we need, then how to fund it.
This one will be the same as all the others, how much can we cut to fit within an ever smaller budget and promise jam tomorrow!!!
Your first sentence – that is what the SDR is set up to do.
Well technically yes but the actual is somewhat different, how much cash have we got, what neat equipment can I announce while cutting back everything else.
500 words…are they joking, I could do 500 per heading.
Luckily that’s what they are asking for.
I doubt I can do more than four or five headings.
I’ve decided I’m going to do it after all, I must try. Those of us on this forum with above average knowledge of defence must.
Maybe a “joint declaration” by UKDJ isn’t such a bad idea, with a pub meet come “summit” to decide on the wording!
Pub meet sounds good!
I’d love it, really. Especially those of us in reasonable distance in the south, South East.
We often talk about what additional manpower and equipment is needed in all three services, but not about what cuts the Forces could live with. Do you have any thoughts? I can’t think of much. Maybe reduce the Red Arrows team size, pare down Public Duties for the army, cut a few civil servants MoD posts, reduce the MCMV manned ship fleet (whilst accelerating the speed of rolling out the unmanned platforms), remove flying pay from those not in a flying appointment, reduce very slightly activity levels (ie training). Make all MoD purchases (on equipment and stores etc) VAT-free. Do… Read more »
Hi Graham. Blimey, I don’t know. They got rid of all the fat long ago, then cut into the flesh, now have burrowed into the bones. Any more means, especially with the wider institution of the army, that it will unravel. The CGS mentioned this a while ago. We are now at the point of removing entire capabilities, which I’d be against. Example. Only this morning I was looking at the VIP/VVIP area at Northolt. I review and update my files constantly, to try and keep track of ALL areas of our military and the MoD. Quite a job as… Read more »
Just gone onto this- it took me so long to answer the dross questions in an attempt at providing a constructive response that I timed out and the form couldn’t be submitted due to taking too long to fill in. Well that’s because they asked so many stupid questions. Look we all know what the armed forces need 1) increased funding 2) urgency in repairing the damage done by successive governments defence cuts 3) modernising the armed forces to face the known threats eg China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. 4) despite the budget being dire there is a very… Read more »
Joking/kidding and sarcasm aside… They need a no holds barred review, of why people want to leave the armed forces. What would stop them from leaving, and how they can entice more people to join the armed forces in the first place. This should also apply to the RFA. The armed forces have been haemorrhaging personnel for a long while. That figure is going up and up on a weekly basis. The reality seems to be that no-one cares a jot, as to why this is happening Personally I think issues with retaining current serving personnel, is far more important… Read more »
I PVR’d in 2009. The application form asked my reasons for wanting to leave.
Then there is the Continuous Attitude Survey (CAS) for those serving but not necessarily thinking of leaving – do look it up – all the reasons for disatisfaction by serving personnel are there. Very informative.
CTA40 cannon on Boxer, so the army has an actual IFV replacement for Warrior would be my first thought.
My ten ‘peneth Triple 16 inch turrets in super firing configuration on B2 Rivers. F18s a Gen 3.5 aircraft to replace all Gen 5 and future Gen 6 aircraft so we can then have cats and traps. SSN 19 Shipwreck fitted in the ramp on QE class. VL SM2 missiles for Anti Air fitted into the deck of QE blocking flight operations. An additional island to be installed to take the additional electronics and trackers needed for a Semi Active missile. 3000 tanks for the army, all with Brimstone but no CSS to do anything for them. 20 Vulcan bombers… Read more »
Hedgehog mortars on the T23s?
Bring back Swingfire? SMG? Chieftain?
Actually, Swingfire or a modern equivalent would be a chuffin’ good idea!
Isn’t that called Brimstone?
Yup, I wrote then thought!
🙄
liking the Vulcan bit!
No mate SLR is fine by me 😀
No!!! 😆
Would HMG government like to ask Me what I want for tea tonight 🤔 🤗
They probably already know !👀👀👀
And cost more then the new Defence budget 🤗
😂😂😂
Am I the only one fighting their way through the questionnaire.
My final year masters exam was easier.
Don’t fill it in online! Write separate sub-500 word essays to each question you want to respond to offline. sleep on it and have another go. Rinse repeat. Only when you are happy with all your answers should you go back online to cut and paste your answers into the slots.
We have weeks to polish and refine.
You read my mind, that is exactly what I am doing.
Thanks you anyway , hopefully others will follow your advice.
This is baffling. They are asking for views on fairly in-depth technical issues from any random member of the public who sees fit to respond? Presumably including any Russian trolls who happen upon the link? They will end up with a rather useless dataset
What would be a good start is whatever is decided is properly funded and sufficient in both capability and correct staffing levels. There needs to be sufficient reserve and an understanding of the need to replace equipment before it becomes redundant and goes out of service. Finally an understanding this nation is an island and 98% of trade goes by sea and most of the energy it relies on is coming from the sea whether that is renewables or the more traditional ones!!
Reading these questions, did HM Treasury compose them? Some examples: “and recommend what legacy capability currently in service and in the extant future plans should be modified or dropped” Code for cuts. We just had the “sunset” review conducted by Wallace when Sentinel, Hercules, Defender, Islander, Hawk, and much else was dropped, and now they look for more? “how UK Defence transitions to the optimum balance of regular, reserve, civil servant, and industry people Code for cuts, there are too few regulars as it is. Propose how the maritime (including littoral) domain is developed to contribute to an Integrated Force,… Read more »
Morning DM , not what one wants to hear on a morning feels like time to pack my bag and go .Honestly what’s gone wrong with our politicians etc ,fair enough third never win a pub quiz but what a bloody mess .☕
What else could “existing capabilities that do not support this” actually mean? Upgrades? However, stuff will go and should go. Stuff should also be bought. The first question talks about a 25 year timeframe. Things can’t stand still. the forces have been integrated for decades. The commands work together in blocks, but are they integrated enough at a lower/unit level? Does the software of one command integrate with the software of another. Is there sensor fusion between an army drone and an air-force one to allow a joint operation to have synthesised awareness? I’d expect there’s still plenty of integration… Read more »
Morning Jon. Integration? C3 and Software wise I couldn’t say, that’s above me, likewise sensor fusion. We have a joint command, as we know, and that command has tri service units and groups below it, so yes there is some integration at unit level. Whether it is enough, cannot say, how far does one go? I don’t support a USMC concept if that’s what they’re implying, and some units one cannot integrate. I’ve copied and pasted the questions into word to work on slowly, as you suggest. Many are beyond me in the details they request, but I’ll do it… Read more »
Hi Daniele I don’t think I’m up for a USMC mirror either. I don’t think there’s agreement about the new combined strategic HQ yet, which I’m guessing will drive at least some aspects of cross-domain integration. We know both Tories and Labour espoused it, so there’s a good chance it originated in MOD or possibly with the CDS. If you ask Charlie Stickland, I’m sure he’d tell you it’s PJHQ Northwood writ large. Ask Jim Hockenhull and he’ll say it’s an all-encompassing Stratcom. Probably me seeing integration through the C4ISR or Digital Backbone lens is my own personal bias. If… Read more »
I recall a few years back Defence Estates quickly selling off MoD sites before and whilst the army was leaving Germany (BAOR/BFG). Many useful UK sites were lost before they could be used by returning forces.
Dozens and dozens and dozens. It is endless. Some are of course more vital strategically than others, but a footprint for public exposure is also important.
Vanishing forces and no AFCO’s do nothing for recruitment.
Utter idiots….
Looks like Airbus and Sykorsky have given their views….several reports that both have walked away from the NMH project. Leonardo is the only remaining bid.
HMG have asked defence contractors for ideas for in year savings. This is separate from the defence review. It occurs to me that the MoD might view the T31 procurement as a success i.e. issuing fairly broad requirements and giving bidders an opportunity to deploy their expertise – give them a lot of scope to propose solution ideas. I wonder if in opening up the defence review to input from ‘the public’ what they are trying to do is to get defence contractors to suggest creative alternative ways / technologies / programs to realise our strategic ambitions. E.g. identify unnecessary… Read more »