SDSR 2020

Anti-air missiles.
Faster jets
Bigger bombs

So bigger bombs are compensated for by faster jets allowing more distance to be put between them.

And if anti-air missiles were 100% effective nobody would have an air force.
 
And all it takes is one missile and that aircraft is gone. Lessons were learned after the Falklands. We didn't have AEW, CIWS, and the only decent anti aircraft missile turned out to be Sea Wolf. Rapier and Sea Dart both had "issues." Since then the issues were addressed and we haven't had much of a significant threat for the last four decades.

Which is precisely why we dont need a cold war nuclear deterrent. The threat has changed and we need to change our spending priorities to match that threat.


We are leaving the EU. Consider politics. We would be saying to the US we want to end our partnership, funding, expertise on one of the most important projects we both share, to come up with something new, entirely from scratch and who we might even ask for help with from France as they are the most recent country to do it.

Snub the US and ask for help from France? Now?

Why would we need to be in partnership with the French? - we could share the development costs (or even buy off the shelf) the next generation LRSO missile that is being developed to replace the AGM-86.
 
So bigger bombs are compensated for by faster jets allowing more distance to be put between them.

And if anti-air missiles were 100% effective nobody would have an air force.
You seem to be talking just about the UK and us going it alone.

Have a look at how many combat aircraft we have. Then allow for how many will be unavailable due to servicing etc.

Not only would we need to develop a new missile system, we would also need to expand our aircraft or we might not be able to guarantee sufficient numbers to act as a deterrent.
 
Which is precisely why we dont need a cold war nuclear deterrent. The threat has changed and we need to change our spending priorities to match that threat.
See report above. Or the BBC link above. Trident keeps coming out as actually being cheapest and that's with people who do this for a living.

The subs have decades of experience and now carry a minimum number of warheads and are still an effective deterrent. Submarines are hard to find as they have the entire ocean to play in and an incoming warhead is almost impossible to stop.
Why would we need to be in partnership with the French? - we could share the development costs (or even buy off the shelf) the next generation LRSO missile that is being developed to replace the AGM-86.
So we replace something we are in partnership with, with something we aren't? That's also different technology. All the scientists skilled at rocket science replaced by those who would need to work on an cruise system. And that's if the businesses involved would be interested in a partnership.
 
See report above. Or the BBC link above. Trident keeps coming out as actually being cheapest and that's with people who do this for a living.

No it is not. The report assumed that you would be replacing Trident with an equivalent weapons system, that is why they factored in having 35 JSF on permanent nuclear alert.


So we replace something we are in partnership with, with something we aren't? That's also different technology. All the scientists skilled at rocket science replaced by those who would need to work on an cruise system. And that's if the businesses involved would be interested in a partnership.

You cant keep building nuclear submarines if the threat is not there just to give the Navy something to play with. The word moves on and Defence procurement needs to move on as well.
 
No it is not. The report assumed that you would be replacing Trident with an equivalent weapons system, that is why they factored in having 35 JSF on permanent nuclear alert.
Because the aim of the nukes is to be a deterrent. If you are actually using them that's failed. So you need a credible deterrence.
You cant keep building nuclear submarines if the threat is not there just to give the Navy something to play with.
There's also an issue that a couple of the new subs are part built. Cancel them and a lot of people will be out of work. Paying highly skilled people to be on the dole is expensive and politically unpopular. This isn't like shopping for a product and being able to just swap. You have political implications with the US, at home, knowledge, skills, all involved in the decision.

And yes the world does move on. As the threat from the USSR diminished, new threats such as North Korea and Iran appeared. Russia is now investing in a new ballistic missile system. The subs are going to be around for decades and there's a lot of rogue states getting them.
 
In light of the upcoming SDSR and the comprehensive spending review, it worth taking stock of Defence Spending. The Government has been keen to promote that it is spending 2% of GDP on Defence but spending is far below what it was during the Blair and Brown eras:

_99694411_chart-defence_spending-e1rx3-nc.png


Given the significant defence requirements that really need to be addressed by the 2020 review, we really need to see overall spending increase. It would be good to see a new target set, perhaps 2.5% of GDP.
 
Blair and Brown had us heavily involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence more spending.
 
Indeed, although of course the Cameron years saw us involved in Libya, the war against ISIS/ISIL, the re-generation of Carrier Strike and the creation of a new Joint Operating area in the North Atlantic. By far the biggest drop in that graph was the savage cuts of SDSR 2010.
 
Whilst COVID-19 continues to dominate the news, the next Strategic Defence and Security Review rumbles on. Some draft leaked plans were revealed at the weekend by the Sunday Times (and picked up by other outlets) suggesting a cut of 20,000 to the strength of the army and Royal Marines with the savings being used to pay for cyber and space warfare capabilities.


Naturally there is outrage in the Tory press - especially as Cummings is involved - and I suspect pressure will be applied to prevent this from happening. But clearly we do need to invest in cyber and space capabilities. Meanwhile, given the bloody cost of Afghanistan and the political damage it caused senior politicians, the likelihood of the UK deploying tens of thousands of troops overseas again in the medium term is remote. On the face of it, the leaked cuts make a lot of sense. It will be interesting to see if the Government has the courage to bring them forward.
 
The problem with cuts to the military is that when, if, you change your mind it's a very expensive and lengthy process to reinstate the capability. That's quite apart from the potential loss in 'corporate knowledge'. Thankfully that was managed after the cancellation of the Nimrod MR4, but it takes a while even to train a soldier to be a warfighter as opposed to someone who knows how to shoot and shine his boots, let alone more specialist roles in the RAF and RN.
 
Tobias Ellwood MP, Chair of the Defence select committee, is seeking clarification on who is actually leading the ongoing Defence Review. Apparently the Prime Minister has yet to become involved, despite the review being run by the Cabinet Office. The review also seems to be falling short of its billing:

“Number 10 has described the integrated review as the most comprehensive policy review since the end of the cold war; however, we are concerned that the gap between this expectation and reality is widening”

Not a particularly good omen for a review that is going to set the direction of our Armed Forces and Security Services for the decade hence.

 
It sounds like the Army's tank capability might be cut in the upcoming SDSR:


I think this is a bad move. The Challenger 2 is a highly capable platform that was used to great effect in Iraq and the former Yugoslavia. It is truly a world leading battle tank. I appreciate a repeat of a conflict like the 2003 war is unlikely but it would seem more savings could be achieved and less long term risk incurred by reducing Army Infantry numbers rather than eliminating a capability that could take decades to regenerate if needed.
 
A big boast for Defence today:

Overall good news although it is worth noting the money is significant less than Defence was hoping for. Main thrust for the new funds is Cyber, Space and Nuclear.

Focus now shifts towards the Integrated Review, now due in February, which will determine what needs to be cut to balance the books and create space for the new capabilities as well as enhancements/upgrades to existing equipments.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom