Parliamentary Answers – to 11th November 2011

77 thoughts on “Parliamentary Answers – to 11th November 2011”

1. elizzar November 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm

   very sad to read the list of ships declared ‘surplus’, as well as feeling it is utter nonsense. if we had surplus ships we wouldn’t be having the situation of no uk response ship during libyan adventures, for instance, would we? obviously mr. think defence isn’t concerned, what with his hating of the navy (i jest! ), but it really is getting to the point of no return. and around 200 tanks left in the army … hmmm, it doesn’t sound many to me, but then again i guess even a dozen traipsing across a plain, desert or through a city would mess up someone else’s day …
2. Brian Black November 12, 2011 at 9:48 pm

   That’s enough Challengers for a full three-squadron regiment attached to each multi-role brigade. Seems like a fairly well balanced package to me, and a reasonable reduction in the context of our current defence assumptions; much better than the 50-tank-army horror stories churned out by Rumour Control in the past.

   The question is, who’s in the market for a bunch of second hand tanks with obsolescent guns?
3. Brian Black November 12, 2011 at 9:48 pm

   That’s enough Challengers for a full three-squadron regiment attached to each multi-role brigade. Seems like a fairly well balanced package to me, and a reasonable reduction in the context of our current defence assumptions; much better than the 50-tank-army horror stories churned out by Rumour Control in the past.

   The question is, who’s in the market for a bunch of second hand tanks with obsolescent guns?
4. Lord Jim November 13, 2011 at 6:23 am

   Oman, Jordan. Both have MBTs that use a RO Rifled 120mm gun.
5. Gabriele November 13, 2011 at 10:33 am

   I think there are or were around 32 Challengers in BATUS, and then there’s A squadron 1RTR, with at least 14.

   That would still leave a force of 36 tanks for regiment, many of which would of course be normally in storage.

   Wartime establishment of 38 tanks per regiment, with a maximum of 3 regiments deployed at once in the SDSR “30.000 men, 3 brigades” one-off effort, i’m guessing?
6. Angus McLellan November 13, 2011 at 3:03 pm

   @Lord Jim: Jordan wouldn’t be in the market for rifled gun upgrades any more I think. They are developing a couple of replacement solutions mounting the RUAG 120mm gun. There’s the the Falcon and the Al-Hussein projects.
7. ArmChairCivvy November 13, 2011 at 3:55 pm

   As the 120mm NATO smoothbore gun proved difficult to fit into the existing Chally turret, maybe we should change the turret lock, stock and barrel for the Falcon III in , say, 5 years’ time (and team up with the designers now)?
8. Bob November 14, 2011 at 1:14 pm

   Oman, already the operator of 38 Challenger IIs, would be the obvious candidate for such a purchase. Jordan can barely afford to upgrade the Chieftains and Chally Is they have and the Challenger II uses a different gun and transmission which would complicate the logistics issues.

   Frankly, the likelyhood of them finding a new home is pretty slim; especially is reports of further Bundeswehr Leopard II reductions turn out to be true.

   Also, MRR might be dead (good riddance I say), a lot of noise being made about the possibility of a mix of heavy and light brigades.

   FI; 227 is less than 25% of the MBT force that was being planned in the 80s.
9. Phil November 14, 2011 at 1:26 pm

   I don’t see what is so controversial about what is essentially a brigade group? It’s not radical.
10. Think Defence November 14, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    Gabby is right, we need to get our heads around the simple maths. If MRB goes ahead and the Defence Planning Assumptions remain then our maximum effort is a 3 brigade division. Consequently we will only ever have enough of anything for that maximum effort plus some for training, trials etc

    I might do a seperate post on what me might do (besides turn them into razor blades) with a bunch of Challenger tanks.

    Good to see you back Bob

    If I was to hazard a guess I think quite a few will be disposed of on the open market to collectors etc, some held as reserves and the rest melted down, the balance between those three decided by the relative values and costs.

    I would like to see some of them turned into infantry/tank/engineer support vehicles for use in complex urban environments, an area in which I think we have a bit of a gap
11. Bob November 15, 2011 at 10:22 am

    TD,

    As you have noted before, the MoD has a habit of immediately dumping anything seen as surplus to requirements onto the disposal list (there are internal accounting reasons for that)- it is therefore improbable that any will get converted into anything. I find the whole affair depressing, the UK AFV industry has been blighted by poor decision making since the 50s;

    1) Chieftain was ruined by the decision to go multifuel and thus adopt the awful Leyland L60

    2) Chobham adoption was delayed by a decade by the decision to cooperate with Germany on FMBT- and then the decision to hand Chobham over to Germany and the US before it was utilised in the UK

    3) The cancellation of MBT80 in order to keep Vickers alive by buying Iran’s unwanted Shir 2s robbed the UK of a potentially internationally competitive tank

    4) The selection of the unstabilised Rarden for Warrior more-or-less killed any real export opportunities it may have had

    There are many others, DIS05 being the most atrocious of all.
12. ArmChairCivvy November 15, 2011 at 10:32 am

    How many times have I been saying this same thing (will it ever make it to Parliamentary questions?)
    “the MoD has a habit of immediately dumping anything seen as surplus to requirements onto the disposal list (there are internal accounting reasons for that)- it is therefore improbable that any will get converted into anything.”

    The exception might be the Warrior bridgelayer?
    - Bob, I tried to find out whether it is actually the same mechanism as the one sold in a few copies to Indonesia, mounted on Stormer chassis. Or something new? Hardly the same that is carried by a Chally chassis
13. Bob November 15, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Warrior Bridge-layer is curious, I see two possibilities:

    1) Scheming to replace some of the support elements of FRES-SV with redundant Warrior chassis- would also explain why FRES-SV is increasingly being branded simply as Scout

    2)Usual muddle headedness- one project office doing one thing without coordinating properly with another all with BAE stirring the pot

    The really big question though, is what the hell is going on with the UV requirement! Surely not a new platform- so FV430 for longer? dog pack recapitalisation?
14. Gabriele November 15, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    “Gabby is right, we need to get our heads around the simple maths. If MRB goes ahead and the Defence Planning Assumptions remain then our maximum effort is a 3 brigade division. Consequently we will only ever have enough of anything for that maximum effort plus some for training, trials etc”

    We have to HOPE that the MRB goes ahead.
    If it does not, there will be even less kit and less men in service.

    Also, note that, assuming 3 MRBs on the field (or a divisional HQ commanding Marines/Para plus two MRBs, a bit like in iraq 2003, which is probably more likely; with each MRB having (if necessary) an expanded Tank regiment taking up squadrons from non-deployed regiments)

    3 x 38 (if i’m right in my estimate of the ORBAT) would mean 114 tanks deployed, only 2 less than Iraq 2003.

    This might still be reached by deploying two MRBs plus Marines and Para, by deploying two complete regiments plus a number of squadrons of Challengers, coming from the other formations, eventually expanding the 2 regiments in the field towards Type 44 or even Type 58 establishment.

    In theory, it is not SO bad.

    The important part now is to see what happens with the regiments themselves. Because they might well be cut further.

    227 tanks and five regiments with a Type 38 ORBAT?
    I’d happy like a child on Christmas, considering that it could be far, far worse.

    Besides, already in 2003 it was evident that 116 tanks (and indeed the whole force deployed) was the very maximum the UK could pull off.
    Planning (or better, dreaming) of doing something bigger than that just does not fit reality.

    “it is therefore improbable that any will get converted into anything.”

    Unfortunately.
    Since a good share of the Challengers, as it was, were already in long term storage, i’m assuming that the 118 retired tanks will be scrapped/cannibalized/sold eagerly if any buyer wants a few.

    But honestly, i don’t think there’s anyone ready to buy something like Challenger.
    Not because there is no one interested, but because those interested do not have the money.

    Unless, perhaps, Afghanistan, if like Iraq, at some point they build an Armour branch for their army. But in that case the UK might gift a number of tanks to them, or at most give them away at truly bargain price.
15. Gabriele November 15, 2011 at 4:00 pm

    “Scheming to replace some of the support elements of FRES-SV with redundant Warrior chassis- would also explain why FRES-SV is increasingly being branded simply as Scout”

    Yes. The maneuver support element of FRES, the Army realistically considers dead.
    Terrier will be it.

    There remains a requirement for perhaps 35 Bridgelayers / engineer vehicles, and evidently they believe that the only chance to get these is using Warriors hulls.

    “The really big question though, is what the hell is going on with the UV requirement!”

    Simplest answer is “nothing”, in the sense that the Army wants to start talking about FRES UV again in 2016 or 2018, to have something in service by 2022.

    In the interim, the most we can expect is Mastiff being brought into core for the Mechanized infantry, and to allow a sizeable number of FV430 MK3 to be retired.
16. paul g November 15, 2011 at 4:06 pm

    @ACC have seen something (i’ll hunt before posting) that the warrior bridgelayer will carry the same bridge as trojan.
    Found it, was on ARRSE quote from someone who had a chat with BAe at DSEI, cut and paste time;

    The warrior bridgelayer was at the Dsei show this week in London

    it uses the Reme variant, without the turret, and a Pearsons engineering launch assembly, that bolts to the front of the vehicle

    it launches the N012 bridge, and BAE see no reason why it wouldnt be able to do x2 no 12s(piggyback).
    BAE say thay have had the weight with pearsons launch structure and no 12 on top sat around 30 ish ton.

    note:titan can carry No12′s at 13.5m or 1 No10 at 26m.hydraulics would be a problem to stick the No10 scissor on the warrior For more info see the upcoming highly informative bridge series written by some bloke in a container!
17. paul g November 15, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    update, found this snippet of info

    BAE Systems has already built a static demonstrator with its own money, and has developed an interface allowing the vehicle to switch from bridge-laying to operating with a mine plow, dozer blade or excavator arm.

    so do quite a lot of what terrier does!!
18. Think Defence November 15, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    The No 10 is without a doubt the smartest of smartest bridges out there but if it can carry a pair of 12′s then using combination bridging and trestles you can achieve a similar effect but its interesting to speculate why all of a sudden there is a requirement for a medium weight assault bridging capability because CVR(T) certainly never had one, they were pretty nimble and could use the Air Portable Ferry Bridge.

    SV is too heavy for many bridges and can’t use the APFB so now our scouting lead elements need a load of CS capabilities to be effective

    Anyone further another theory?
19. Gabriele November 15, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    “SV is too heavy for many bridges and can’t use the APFB so now our scouting lead elements need a load of CS capabilities to be effective”

    I think this is the point.
    The cost of a bigger, better protected but much heavier vehicle.

    On the subject of bridging, dunno if it was already noted, but it appears that a big exercise with M3s and all the theater went live in Germany:
    http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/TrainingAndAdventure/EngineersTakePartInMajorExerciseInGermany.htm
20. Bob November 15, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Paul G,

    The whole thing was at DSEi; I forget what they called the warrior hull but they had given it some fancy name.

    Gabriele,

    Kind of does not matter whether they go MRB or not- the personnel numbers have been set so whatever force structure is chosen will have to fit within that and the budgets have been fixed so equipment will have to fit within those. Latest rumour is that favour is shifting towards 2 light and 2 heavy brigades (+ 16 air assault)- which raises a whole new series of questions about the UV requirement.

    Also, note from the Warrior contract- OSD is now somewhere in the 2040s, basically an additional 10 year extension over the previously qouted 2035 and interestingly CAT UK is now in the team- I am wondering if that means an engine mod (CAT owns Perkins who acquired Rolls Royce Motors which made the CV8 in the Warrior).
21. Jed November 15, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    Bob said:

    “Latest rumour is that favour is shifting towards 2 light and 2 heavy brigades (+ 16 air assault)- which raises a whole new series of questions about the UV requirement.

    Sounds about right, more budget driven fudgery ! No thought about threat, doctrine, effects, just lets concentrate the equipment we can afford in two “heavy” briages, and make the rest of the infantry “light” because we can’t actually afford any FRES UV for them !! Were doomed I tell ya, doomed…..
22. Think Defence November 15, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    Jed, that seems about right
23. Phil November 15, 2011 at 6:31 pm

    I’ve heard one source mention it, second hand, as being an option. Unless you have other sources Bob stop trying to turn a rumour into something more substantial by saying favour is shifting.

    It’s been mooted via the Economist – nobody has made any public decisions and there’s sod all in the public domain to show how popular this option is or how likely it is to happen. And just because it’s being chewed over on ARRSE doesn’t give it anymore legitimacy.

    Unless you’d like to let us know your sources.
24. Frenchie November 15, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    Is it possible that Titan bridgelayer support Challenger 2, Warrior bridgelayer support Warrior and FRES SV bridgelayer support FRES SV or this is strange point of view ?

    FRES UV will come into service when the Mastiff and other vehicles will be used, it makes sense to me. It would be nice to keep the Warthog, as recce vehicle of 16AAB.
25. ArmChairCivvy November 15, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    That “chewed over on ARRSE” is good enough. And then, as soon as the ink on Reserve Forces new thinking has dried, the top General gives the same man the next job
    … come on, Phil, there is something to it

    As we speculate, we also contribute (ideas; says the naive optimist)
26. Phil November 15, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    There isn’t.

    There is ONE source citing this option – the Economist.

    That source has been posted on ARRSE and people are talking about it – having read the threads there is nobody there who has anything particularly insightful to say about how likely it is to happen.

    There is no context to the information. Nobody is publically saying if it a final decision, if it is one of several options and models proposed, if it was ever a serious contender, whether its crystallising into policy or is simply a study paper.

    Unless people post me some sources other than ARRSE or the Economist article I will treat it as what it is: a complete rumour with no context and no depth to it.

    Saying that decision makers are favouring this model is disingenuous; I’ve read nothing that says that except one article in the Economist.
27. Bob November 15, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    Phil,

    Thank you for once again demonstrating why you are not worth my time (hints; you are bitter, ill-informed and struggle with comprehension). If you do not like or agree with what I say then that is fine, but please do try and avoid getting your panties twisted.

    Frenchie,

    Agreed, Warthog is nice, unfortunately the only vehicle we can be sure will be kept is Foxhound as it has been moved into the core budget- everything else is still on the chopping block. Peter Luff was particularly cryptic on the subject at the Modern Infantry Conference.
28. Mike W November 15, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    @Bob

    First of all, welcome back. I always enjoy the cut and thrust you bring to an argument/discussion, not that we haven’t had a good deal of that recently!

    Now to these brigades. You say:

    “Also, MRR might be dead (good riddance I say), a lot of noise being made about the possibility of a mix of heavy and light brigades.”

    Well, I’m not so sure about getting rid of ALL the MRBs. The idea surely has a great deal of validity to it, doesn’t it? As the SDSR states, the utility of an MRB is its “building block” structure, which allows greater choice in the composition of the force to be deployed, WITHOUT having to draw on other elements from the rest of the Army. We need self-supporting formations to create cohesion and flexibility.

    At the same time I feel that some sort of heavy armour structure should be retained. Yes, I know, I want to have my cake and eat it! If, however, we end up with two heavy brigades and two light, can you possibly say what format you think they will take? Do you think, for instance, that the heavy brigades will look somewhat similar to the present-day armoured brigade i.e. with one Armoured regiment, two Armoured Infantry regiments, an Armoured Recce squadron, an Artillery regiment , an Engineer Squadron, an AAC detachment, etc. etc.? Or will they end up looking rather like the present Mechanised Brigades (not so different from MRBs)? Perhaps it is too early to say and all this is rather premature.

    However, I am extremely concerned about the form that the Light Brigades will take. At the moment they appear to have little more than three of four infantry battalions each, supported by Artillery, Engineer, Logistic etc. units. What sort of vehicles could we possibly offer them? Land Rover WMIKS? Foxhounds (not enough), armoured trucks (not developed) or what? One thing’s for certain. You could not possibly send such a lightly armed and lightly protected formation into most world trouble spots today without heavier support of some kind.

    Unfortunately, I think that Jed might be only too right when he says that this is all budget driven fudgery. Surely a new vehicle of some kind will be needed for lighter forces and what about the TA? What will the Reserves use? Between light forces and the TA large numbers are involved. Maybe Jed’s own suggestion of the RG35 (I think it was his)is the answer but where to find the cash?
29. Frenchie November 15, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    Bob,

    My opinion is that infantry can’t be light, in the sense that you give in UK Army, we need vehicles to transport troops, as in the French infantry, my opinion is that we will have two heavy brigades and two or three brigades mechanised with FRES UV.
30. Bob November 15, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    Mike,

    Indeed, lots of questions, there seem to be two outstanding issues: the first as already mentioned is the UV requirement but here is also the additional personnel cut that was leaked/announced back in September/October that is going to affect force structure somehow. I note that William F Owen wrote for RUSI Defence Systems recently in which he was critical of the MRB concept- it is an interesting piece. Thereserves should end up using the same equipment as their counterpart regular units, the contrary would illogical.

    Frenchie,

    Light infantry does not neccessarily mean dismounted, it may just mean mounted in something lighter- so something like Warthog/Viking or Foxhound. In the US Army light infantry is usually HMMWV mounted whereas the Stryker brigades are considered medium.
31. Phil November 15, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    “You are bitter, ill-informed and struggle with comprehension”

    I struggle with comprehension? I hunt down the root source for this rumour, I search for corroboration, I analyse ARRSE threads, and I find no further mentions of this rumour or its context or more information and you think I lack comprehension skills? If trying to gather evidence to back up a rumour is poor comprehension Bob then I can only imagine how things are arranged in your world.

    All I’ve done is ask you to point out where you got the information from about it becoming the more “favoured” option.

    You won’t engage with me Bob because I call you out on your propensity to turn internet rumour and sources into sounding like you know something lay folk do not.

    I don’t deny I’m ill-informed on the matter, and, unless you stump up another source, then so are you mate.

    All you have to do is stump up the sources to substantiate what you said.

    There’s nothing bitter about calling someone out for misleading people. I would bet the farm you know no more about it then we do and that your sum of knowledge on the matter stems from the exact same sources I have read.

    I’m not bitter about anything, I think you lack rigour in your claims. If you didn’t swoon about so cock sure about your opinions then I wouldn’t rise to the bait.
32. Bob November 15, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    Phil,

    In your own words: “I don’t deny I’m ill-informed on the matter”. Enough said.
33. Phil November 15, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Very droll Bob.

    Avoided everything I said, once again.

    Your silence on your sources is thunderous.

    How can anyone take you seriously when you ignore questions of evidence?
34. ArmChairCivvy November 15, 2011 at 7:33 pm

    We do more than read press releases (I hope) on this site
    - speculation is allowed; citing sources for facts is good
    - it is not just where we are, but how the ‘bloody hell’ from that good place where we came from, we might end up in…

    Sorry to get pedantic, but I can’t see how you two (who contribute so much) always end up locking horns over “nothing”
35. Phil November 15, 2011 at 7:58 pm

    “We do more than read press releases (I hope) on this site”

    I don’t mean to say otherwise. There is nothing wrong with speculation and rumour, it’s all good fun. But Bob phrases them as if it was fact. He stated that the 2 Heavy, 2 Light model was gaining favour.

    That statement exists in one, journalistic source, without context, without background information. It is interesting, it stimulates debate, but Bob goes beyond that and represents it as a fact.

    Perhaps it is, so I asked him for sources because I have only been able to trace one source that mentions it. And he once again, completely ignores it. He likes to flower his posts with intellectual rhetoric, but he comes up short when intellectual rigour is demanded of him. That makes him a hypocrite. And that is why I clash.

    How can I trust what he says when he refuses to give sources? How can you? Sure what he writes is interesting sometimes, and I happen to agree with him on a lot of the FRES issues, but I cannot recount his facts to a third party and argue his argument because he will not divulge any sources and I cannot verify his facts.

    Which is fine, nobody expects a magnum opus on a blog comment. But then don’t cut around the blog like you know something lay people do not and talk with authority on matters that you refuse to verify with sources.

    In short ACC, Bob often talks the talk, but he does not walk the walk.
36. ArmChairCivvy November 15, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    Phil,
    I leave it with this extract…think about what is says
    “That makes him a hypocrite. And that is why I clash.”
    - not we?

    I will go back to biz
37. Gabriele November 15, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    I honestly believe the MRB concept is the best one for the British Army of the future.

    Light Brigades usually end up being too light, Heavy ones are limited to kind of extreme cases deployments.

    With 2 Heavy Brigades and 2 Light Brigades the Army would only gain:

    - Not a single brigade with a realistic chance of being deployed “as it is”. Every deployment would end up regularly picking up a formation from a brigade, another from another brigade, this from that, that from there.

    - Not enough brigades to sustain even a single enduring deployment unless 16AA is counted in and “warped” when deployed or deployment guidelines changed.

    Unless the Army is really desperate and does it as a form of budget fudging, i don’t think it will happen.
    It makes no sense.
    It would maintain a structure concept which is practically already there, and that is judged inadequate.

    Why would you ever want to do it…?

    I read the rumor myself. Felt weird then, and continues to feel out of place now. It does not seem to be based on much evidence.

    If they go for 4 brigades, i’d dare saying that the ability to deploy a brigade in an enduring way goes to hell, and is replaced by a battlegroup-sized deployment, likely.

    But can it be done without “rewriting” the SDSR?
    No.

    I would be very careful in putting my bet over that one rumor.
38. Brian Black November 15, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    Out of the SDSR, the multirole brigade was the stand-out feature of the future restructured army. It is the one big idea, as far as force structure and operational doctrine is concerned. I should also imagine that cuts and redundancies happening today are tailored towards delivering the 5 MRB structure of the future force.
    If the MRB plan is stillborn (and I have to say I’m sceptical), then surely there’ll be a big stink kicked up by someone. I can’t imagine the Army, Ministry and Government all agreeing to quietly abort the plan – this is someone’s baby, I’d expect to hear more noise than the gentle hum of the rumour mill.
39. Phil November 15, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    The source speaks of moving the army onto a contingency basis and away from a campaigning posture. But, that would fly in the face of historical evidence. The only swift interventions we have conducted in 70 years has been Suez, Faklands and the Gulf.

    All others interventions have been much longer: Palestine, Korea, Malaya, Borneo, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, all have required one or more roulements.

    I suspect there is a battle going on with policy. But I can’t see that its public domain to know who is winning it.
40. Think Defence November 15, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    In terms of rumours, the Economist has been consistently relatively accurate, with the FT.

    Who knows, I think Phil is right, these kinds of things get leaked for a reason, indicating a tug of wills behind the scenes, I expect we will know soon enough
41. ArmChairCivvy November 15, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    Hi Phil,

    I agree with the conclusion ( and the key ministers now lecturing to Continental Europe about the current crisis, just to look good to their own parliamentary faction, they won’t have one thought for defence; may be a half thought for geo-strategy? Or may be that is too long term?)

    About the past, and leaving the on-going to be judged:
    Suez,military win; political disaster
    Falklands, military win, politically sustainable
    The Gulf, the 1st one a win-win

    All other[s] interventions have been much longer: Palestine – unwinding the colonial posture with a confused policy
    Korea – standing up to the bully and politically winning from it (who cares about the stalemate)
    Malaya, Borneo – military win, political win
    Northern Ireland – well done, and the politics? Bosnia – well done, confused politics, but coming good?
    Kosovo – military win, lost South London to their organised crime, though?
42. Chris.B. November 15, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    Why does nobody talk about Oman? *throws toys out of the pram.

    I smell a future post coming…
43. ArmChairCivvy November 15, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    I love the campaign; especially as the heartlands were never disputed
    - an infiltration to counter (not COIN)
44. ArmChairCivvy November 15, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    See what I did
    - a campaign; over how many years?
    - not an intervention (even though it was!)
45. Phil November 15, 2011 at 9:20 pm

    Gutted, there was one more on the tip of my tongue and I couldn’t remember it. Oman it was. Strikemasters and Mirbat.
46. Bob November 15, 2011 at 9:40 pm

    Phil,

    I ignore what you say because you have consistently proven yourself to not be the sharpest tool in the box and when you are told things you ignore them if they prove you wrong- consequently I do not wish to engage you.

    Brian Black,

    SDSR did not create the MRB- it merely continued it as a theme- it had been policy for some time; policy can change. I really do recommend William F Owen’s RUSI piece, I will see if I can find it online. Ultimately the additional personal cuts announced this year will also have to be taken into account.

    Armchaircivvy,

    Whilst the notion that ministers will not be focussed on defence policy makes for an interesting narrative I do not believe it is a sustainable one- defence reform is already well under way and in a critical phase: the new DIS White Paper and the 10 year equipment programme are already overdue, the new materiel strategy should come out any day and there is the ongoing downsizing to manage. And that is why we have a defence minister- to manage defence policy.
47. Think Defence November 15, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    There is a long list here

    http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/05/naval-aviation-blogs-and-think-tanks/
48. Bob November 15, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    Found it: http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/RDS_201101_Owen.pdf

    My instincts are the same though my character demands I be more blunt: I regard the MRB concept as rigidity masquerading as flexibility. The key section from Owen (to my mind):

    “The size of the overall force is dependent on the money available, but regardless of size, the force required should probably be judged in terms of sub-units within a division, that can be organised into BGs and formations as and when required. Battle Group and Formation HQs would be permanently formed as sub-units themselves. This approach is not radical, and it is one that history and operational analysis tend to support.”

    Enjoy. My thought process is no to MRB’s, I see no point in further arguing it here so I shall leave it at that. I will however say that two things must be kept in mind; conflicts that arose from the withdrawal from empire may be representative of post-war history but that does not mean they are representative of the future; there is no more empire to withdraw from. And, the additional personnel cuts to the Army need to be accounted for within the force structure.
49. Think Defence November 15, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    for fucks sake

    lets stay mellow please fellas or I am going to have to start virtual windmilling
50. Phil November 15, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    “I ignore what you say because you have consistently proven yourself to not be the sharpest tool in the box and when you are told things you ignore them if they prove you wrong- consequently I do not wish to engage you.”

    A paragraph that is no substitute for a credible response to my accusations of little intellectual rigour whilst framing your posts in pseudo-intellectual debating prose, and a propensity to not reveal sources.