Towards the end of March the outcome of PR12 will become known and much of the speculation about carriers, aircraft, formations and almost everything should become clearer.
So this is a sweep stake post, is it all going to be bad news, what surprises are the MoD going to pull out of the bag (there always are at least a couple) and who will be perceived as the winners and losers.
Maybe Type 26 will be bought forward, a replacement for Ocean confirmed, a decision on ‘cats and flaps’ or even some clarity on future force 2020, like for example, how we are going to create 5 Multi Role Brigades with 80 odd thousand personnel.
No doubt there will be much to discuss so lets have a few predictions.
In your own time…
I predict:
–Wishy washy language
–Deferred decisions
–Everything being reviewed
–Political statement about bringing the budget under control
–Focus remains Afghan and small interventions.
–Frustrating lack of answers or concrete decisions on anything beyond 2015.
The disbandment of all services individual commands and being consumed by one command, BAF – British Armed Forces
There, that must be the worst case senario…
Echoing the Guardian, the BBC has done a report on the Carrier/Aircraft question, with the MoD ‘confirming’ that its reassessing parts of it… Gentlemen, place your bets!
The reassessment comes from the fact that the MoD has said that all programmes are kept under review.
An options paper or briefing minute has gotten a life of its own by a press desperate to make a story and get a scoop.
I won’t be getting excited. They won’t change the decision. They’re just reviewing it like all other programmes.
Overall, it seems to be good news coming out as the Equipment Programme is actually being balanced out and is sustainable with the planned level of funding.
Hopefully, we will be buying Super Hornets and bringing the programme forward with the money saved. Also, instead of delaying the build process, buy an 8th Astute. Of course, this will probably never happen, but there you go.
i’m not sure PR12 is going to answer many of the big questions.
there is an important review that is happening right now whose conclusions are expected around the same timeframe, and i recall the subject was specific but important.
perhaps AAC or Gabbie recall what it was about………….?
“Hopefully, we will be buying Super Hornets and bringing the programme forward with the money saved.”
What’s the weather like on your planet? No official source has even hinted at buying Super Hornets.
And I don’t consider Sharkeys band of merry men an official source.
Bet they put off all major decisions to planning round 13.
Upgraded field cookery kit in a special trailer. It’s all we’ve got money for.
There’ll be lots of confusion on the F35 B/C, and a decision to postpone a decision until sometime next year. Actually, a postponement is probably the sensible choice given that no one knows if the catapult / arrestor is going to be affordable on the CVF, or if the F35 C can land without getting its’ hook ripped out and tipping the pilot into the sea, and if the F3 B is still financially viable or won’t melt the deck.
I can imagine the scene on the 6th floor (if that’s where the Ministers still hang out). “How the F*CK did we end up in this position?”
Hi TD,
For the next two months, two dates have been advertised well in advance:
- an announcement, what came of the capability combination decided for the T26 in November, after it was ran through the ship’s design
- Carter’s review of army structure
T26 is supposed to come out earlier of the two.
Further out, cats&traps decision (and contract?) will be announced late in the year (no date or month, so make it Q3 or Q4)
- there has been no leaks, but if you follow the parliamentary committees, the mentions in various contexts are 500-800- a bn, but the only thing that is clear is the trend up (will that hit the optimistic views that both will get them in the end; these were clearly firming at the time when Hammond came in… quiet chap, him, not many statements)
Was there some other review you were thinking of (in the above, only one is formally a review)?
So, now into the guessing
- it takes about a bn a year to run a bde
- it will take to 2035 to deliver T26 (in planned numbers)
- if the J in JSF stays, we will get to 40-48 by the early ’20s
… see where I’m going?
6.5 bn for the frigates @ 500m each
1 bn for cats and traps
4.5 bn for JSF @ 100m each
That’s twelve years for a break even, ISDs in line with the current expectations, a couple of the ships to be built thereafter still, but fully funded…shimples?
@ James I agree with you about the confusion over B and C versions of Dave. Its difficult for anyone to make a decision of such importance with out know the costs.
I am predicting a statement which finds an even bigger black hole in the previous governmnets spending plans giving the current administration the ability to go on cutting stuff while not taking any blame with all decisions postponed until next year. At which point the black hole with have reached such an extent that the entire milky way and Andromida Galaxies will collapse in on each other and it’s all Tony Blair and Gordon Browns fault.
why is the nickname for it dave and who thought of it?
May be A, B and C will all flop (like Mustang, to begin with) and we will need “D” to turn it into a star?
- no, more seriously,have had the same question as Topman
Dave, I first heard it over on Warships1. Ostensibly (I’m not sure what that word means but it sounds good doesn’t it) it was because it was a boring, run of the mill, unexciting project and Dave was a boring, unexciting name.
sounds like the worst spotter name i’ve heard
@ AAC – “- Carter’s review of army structure”
ah yes, that is the one.
perhaps we’ll find out what will be the future structure and number of both the limited-stabilisation brigades and punitive-intervention brigades.
i.e.
4 or 5? mrb or specialised?
&
1 or 2? generic commando or specialised?
Gut instinct – lots of short term pain measures, plent of deferrals and capability reductions hidden behind the spin of a new announcement or two.
Plus side – now the blood letting is over, at least the budget balances for the first time in years…
Hi Jedi,
Did you see what I got, for selling one off, RE
” limited-stabilisation brigades and punitive-intervention brigades.
i.e.
4 or 5? mrb or specialised?
&
1 or 2? generic commando or specialised?”
I would also think that from the bdes you will get smaller, but punchy manoeuvre units by combining parts of them with air-assult bns
- funny that, we have four of them, too, by counting in the paras (who can air-assault or deploy in various ways)
4 rump bdes, 4 additional ad hoc battle groups, 3 CDO and SF (with its support), makes ten
- wasn’t there some loose mention about ten at the very beginning of the process?
Bound to be bad news.
No inside knowledge but I would like to see the following happen in PR12 – PoW cancelled and under the head of terms agreement (plus) additional funds 4 more T45′s built (crewed by retiring GP T23′s early), QE kept as original design, agreement to buy 18 – 20 F-35B’s for delivery by 2016-17, agreement to tender for two ships to replace Ocean (obviously cut to one in the 2015 SDSR), money for two more C-17′s, funds to re-wing the C130J’s so that they stay in service, purchase of 9 Sea Hercules as recently proposed by LM, and urgent purchase of an 8 x 8 vehicle family to fill FRES UV and funding for a phased development programme to develop new turret for CRV(T) which with the other programmes to improve CRV(T) results in totally new vehicles rolling off the assembly lines around 2016 for a ten year build programme of around 50 a year all variants.
@ AAC – i am struggling to follow you.
Not sure what you mean by:
“Did you see what I got, for selling one off, RE”
Also –
“- funny that, we have four of them, too, by counting in the paras (who can air-assault or deploy in various ways)”
Which brigades are smaller, since you mention “4″ i presume the limited-stabilisation brigades. but:
1. do you still see them as MRB’s?
2. since you mention air-assault, do you envision an attached AAC regiment?
And –
“4 additional ad hoc battle groups, 3 CDO and SF (with its support), makes ten”
So only one punitive-intervention brigade (3Cdo)?
And, ten what, brigades or battlegroups, or both?
I swear you write in shorthand!
Hi Jedi,
You obviously did not read the previous one
ArmChairCivvy
March 3, 2012 at 4:24 pm
which shows what one less bde translates to over a twelve year horizon.I was sort of continuing from there…
I don’t think the terminology “limited-stabilisation or punitive raids” has set in within the army. They want formations that can fight, if needed, so…
If you structure the 4 bdes in the right way, you’ll get a tracked formation from each that packs the punch equivalent to the old mech bde – and a wheeled component that, used separately and beefed up with an AAC regmnt and a trained air-assault bn achieves v high intra-theatre mobility when that sort of thing is required
That’s how you get 4+4, but now one of your intervention bdes is already allocated. It does not mean that 16X could not fight independently and it does definitely not mean that it could not maintain a bn-sized “ready group” just like 3 CDO will continue to do on the amphib entry side of things.
@ Topman – The Dave name came apparently from RAF crews. Obvioulsy the name lightning has already been used in both British and American service. In British service the English electric lightening was a much loved jet fighter. Aparently allot of RAF bods thought the F35 looked quite bland so the emensley common name of Dave was used and has started to stick.
Wish list? Dear me, what can i say?
1: More subs, cheaper with the experience
2: More T45s w/ ASW, ASuW,
3: T26 scrapped, replaced by corvettes
4: QE & PoW w/ cats’n'traps, leased F18 till F35
5: 4 Juan Carlos/Canberra amphibs planned
5a: F35B flies from amphibs
6: Nimrod equivalent sought
7: FOAS returns!
8: 60,000 regulars, 300,000 active reserves
9: Triple MBT/AFV numbers over 10 years (stored)
10: FRES scrapped, Strykers bought
11: MOD gets true satellite resources
12: Osbourne pays for the Nukes
13: Intercontinental UCAV guaranteed by 2020-25
14: True warrior replacement guaranteed
15: Black Hawks for the greens
Prediction:
1: More cuts
2: More deferrals
3: More empty rhetoric
4: More wasted opportunities
@ iRoosevelt
- 8 Astutes + 4 future Astutes (SLBM / TLAM swappable)
- Second batch of 6 T45, better ASW / AsuW (plans to upgrade rest in due course)
- Scrap T26
- Build (or buy?) corvette / patrol fleet low end covering MineW / secondary ASW and patrol
- QE class – commission both with F35B as per original plan
- 2 JC / Canberra amphibs to replace Ocean capability and have F35B option
- MPA capability – silver bullet fleet of Poseidons for Boomer protection but rest covered US coastguard style by Hercs or similar
- Scrap Tornado
- Keep 160 Typhoon ultimate to replace earlier ones with F35 (whatever model suits best)
Haven’t got to thinking about army but I would probably go off the shelf and bin FRES
Now that the CVF elephant is well and truely out in the open, I would suggest that they start tackling the next one… Trident replacement.
Fact is that there is very little wriggle room to do anything significant in the immediate term (before 2015) because of Afghanistan and the economy. 40-50 jets for the FAA is the best scenario by far, but it looks 20 years away. This will probably be the stated aim in PR12 but nothing else new.
On the nuclear deterrent, the fact is we either continue with the current approach, 3-4 SSBNs, and severely limit other capabilities or we do something new. According to a 2006 white paper, the cost of the new boats where 11-14bn, if this comes out the MOD budget this means no new equipment for a very long time. Looking at various sources the total cost could be as high as 20-25bn.
The fact that the UK has said it will never use nuclear weapons against non nuclear states – countries like Argentina don’t need to care. We will become a countries of two options, we either bribe them with foreign aid or we nuke them (just before the nuke us).
I propose we unilaterally move away from a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) deterrent to purely tactical nuclear weapons. A public statement to say that we will use these against government structures who threaten nuclear harm to the UK should still be a very clear deterrent. The UK would need to have more globally deployed assets capable of launching these weapons, but as a country we would not have all our eggs in one basket which is increasingly becoming less effective with the rise of BMD technology.
The need to further develop cruise missile technology is there anyway, so any nuclear tipped munitions could be part of these programmes. Perhaps we could even join with the French on a next generation air launched ASMP missile. Having these able to be launched from either a SSN, T45 or F35C would give a spectrum of options.
You could increase the number of SSNs to 12, T45s to 8 and a couple of RAF F35C nuclear squadrons and invest in more BMD / satellite technology and spend significantly less.
The nuclear policy would also be more relevant to the world we live in today.
The premise of my earlier wish list post was that any plan to switch back to J-35B was prompted the possibility that the MoD has negotiated a deal with Carrier Alliance that preserves UK ship building and allows the Government to cancel PoW and preserve the one carrier they still want. If they keep QE then there is no way to easily convert her to CATOBAR so this means that the F-35B. So if we do go back to F-35B (which would be against the wishes of the RAF, though F-35B would mean less time at sea for them) I would be willing to bet a fiver that some accommodation has been made with Carrier Alliance.
Starting up a new submarien program post Astute 7 based on a larger Astute carrying four flexible tubes capable of swaping between TLAM and SLBM seems the best option to me for Nuclear Deterents. Four fooly loaded Tridents is still a significant deterent for any nation. If we could use the budget earmarked for the future trident repalcement we might be able to get 8 new vessels. If we ever do need a bigger deternent then it makes sense to spread fewer missiles across more platforms.
Does anyone know if the Trident repalcement was to be funded by the MOD budget rather than the treasury. I rememebr the threat before SDSR but can’t remember if it was actually announced. It would be devisating if it was.
Hi Repulse, a nicely painted big picture (not saying I agree with the details for the future)
Yes, Trident replacement is going to be, in the order of magnitude, close to the cost of land-based fast jets. If you consider that CVF + its air component will cost about the same as the rest of the (remaining) surface fleet (at purchase prices, past and future), a lot of it having been sacrificed for that game changer; and also consider how painful making that trade-off has been… what will come with the next-Trident (and therefore, will there be one?)?
With the new MOD organisation, the service chiefs have been given more autonomy for allocation of budget, within their limit
- Stryker has been mentioned a lot on the wish lists. If you take what has already been allocated to Warrior and FRES SV (about 40% of the 5.5 bn), the remaining budget for 9 years to come would only buy 900 Strykers at current (US)prices. Hence I believe that the number of bdes is going to go down, to get them properly kitted. Gen. Wall, who gave the review task to Gen. Carter stressed in an interview just before that there is no discounting of the possibility that the next conflict after A-stan might be of higher intensity.
…. many ideas above seem to me to be both maritime and air focussed (fine if those commenters really believe those areas are really of greatest need – it is not my opinion), and also more worryingly assuming there’s going to be a “cash positive” outcome to PR12. I am not so optimistic.
We do have some major technical issues with the really big ticket item of CVF + JCA, and a number of still expensive capability gaps e.g. MPA, protected mobility, and further predictions of out-of-service dates for things like amphibious landing. Until the major technical issues around CVF + JCA are resolved everything is going to get jammed up. I expect no major upgrades of anything at all until they are resolved.
That is going to take a couple of years, and any resolution will coincide with withdrawal from Afghanistan and what I am fairly sure from discussion with a politically senior tory they are thinking: some form of SDSR 2013 which aims to baseline a new capability lay down for defence (inc Trident replacement), foreign policy and intelligence prior to the 2015 election. It may not be called SDSR 2013, but that’s what it will be.
So my prediction is strategic mark time for PRs 12 and 13, followed by the big changes in PR 14.
….”major technical issues” for CVF + JCA I refer to above are pure technical issues, and also COST. I should have been clearer.
I prefer to think the F-35 C should be a “Dave” because it arrived by our good Prime Minister’s beneficence.
@Martin, never confirmed either way as far as I know… Been pushed to 2015 where a lot will depend on the economy and who gets in (and whether they are propped up by the Lib Dems) I guess.
Regardless, I think we need a bold new direction now…
Would it really be so bad, if we put F-35B on HMS Queen Elizabeth & F-35C on HMS Prince of Wales?
Any nuclear deterrent replacement must be whatever the Americans use. For one simple reason, and one of the big reasons we bought Polaris.
If we launch, nobody will know if the missile has a Stars and Stripes or a Union Jack on it.
We have fundamentally tied the might of the United States of America into our ultimate defence.
We don’t have 16 SLBMs on a Vanguard, we have everything they have.
“Four fooly loaded Tridents”
Somehow, that reminds me of a Laural and Hardy in a sailor uniform skit…
Maybe it’s just me showing my age.
I was seriously considering if the US and UK actually needed strategic nukes, but upon mature consideration, it’s probably still needed just in case N.Korea or Iran get funny ideas. Pity, it would have been a fair bit of savings.
And concerning the Astutes, I have to ask. Are they really worth it? Can the funding used for them be plowed into the QE and PoW (Ouch, nasty acronym) for better effect and greater strategic reach? What can the subs do that 2 fully operational carriers cannot take over? I know they are marvels and very nice pieces of equipment, but on a strategic or tactical scale, how much effect do they have?
@Observer, not that I want to turn this into a Trident replacement thread, but why do we need Intercontinental nuclear missiles to tackle the threat from Iran / N Korea. Do we seriously believe that we would launch our missiles if either hit Israel / S Korea with a crude missile – even if they could?
@Phil, with the US looking east are you sure our strategic aims will always be aligned? Does having the same missiles actually have the multiplier effect you claim? I really cannot see how.
“@Phil, with the US looking east are you sure our strategic aims will always be aligned? Does having the same missiles actually have the multiplier effect you claim? I really cannot see how.”
Anyone wanting to nuke America is going to start WWIII. Our interests will be most fundamentally aligned should a power somewhere start to threaten nuclear war.
We all live on the same planet.
You don’t get much more “in it together” than that.
There’s no chance that any power that tries to nuke the United States is going to let other nuclear powers exist unscathed.
The Army structure review should be announced on April 12, and it is far more likely to be delayed further, more than brought forwards to the end of march, so we might have to wait a little bit more.
I think what we need to do as a group is come to agreement on what is the baseline for UK defence. Actually perhaps we should start by defining what we mean by UK defence because that is the starting point for all our good natured disagreements. One would humbly suggest that the UK is already at the baseline for UK home island defence (and limited near Continent defence.)
There are reasons why Vanguard boats are as big as they are. There is a reason why they have 5ft or so more in the beam. And there are good reasons why 16 tubes too. There would be little to be gained by bodging an Astute. Even given the cost of the expensive metals used to construct modern submarines they are few savings to be made. If there are any savings to be made they would be in not letting BAE reinvent yet another wheel…..
And another thought the British Army is as tied to the US as the UK nuclear deterrent. Setting aside troop numbers etc. for a moment but without the US the UK can’t deploy its army. Think about it. It wasn’t UK economic, diplomatic, or military power that got us into Iraq or Afghanistan. Some would argue that by putting our young men and women at the sharp end is showing resolve and it does because the UK is “sharing” casualties (what an awful thing to say) if it can’t share the “heavy lifting”. But as the US turns to the Pacific, the importance of the Middle East (such as it is) declines, and Europe becomes a strategic backwater we could end up with a force of 80,000 that is too small to do anything abroad (the US told us in Iraq they didn’t us so what now?) and left to defend an island nobody wants, needs, or can invade. (Indeed if they wanted to take over the UK putting troops ashore would probably happen after the “conflict” what ever bizarre and abstract that will take in age of cyber-warfare and European states having governments imposed on them.)
@Repulse and Phil
Hardly only targets in the US, once any country gets too casual with tossing off nukes, it becomes a global problem and that country cannot be let off lightly lest it opens a floodgate of casual nuclear war. The problem must be nipped in the bud, either by total conventional war to end the existance of that country or by nuclear exchange. Mutual Assured Destruction must be made aboslutely clear or people will keep trying to push the envelope.
@x
The way I see it, defence is probably divided into 3 sections:
1) Homeland defence: Your most basic country self defence.
2) Defence of trade: Your defence of your economy and the traderoutes that sustain it.
3) Protection of citizens overseas: Your defence of your citizens from casual abuse of other countries, either by military force of arms or by diplomatic/economic means.
Other than these, working outside of the framework is a bonus. (i.e Armoured columns into Bagdad etc)
Did I miss anything anyone thinks is essential too?
Phil said “We all live on the same planet.”
I am just visiting.
@Observer
You’re preaching to the choir.
Some states and actors see nuclear weapons use as legitimate – they are simply more destructive versions of conventional weapons.
The only thing stopping them from using their nuclear weapons if they felt they needed to, is the assurance of annihilation.
People like to bury their heads in the sand about nuclear weapons, don’t spend the money, there’s better things to do with them. Personally, I cannot see the logic.
They exist now.
Some actors believe they are legitimate weapons of war.
We must guarantee our ultimate security. And we have done so, in a quite cunning way by tying the US in with us and us with them.
People talk on here about going over to a defence force. But they completely ignore the nuclear dimension.
A defence force would need a strong Navy roled entirely toward protecting an SSBN fleet, no carriers, no amphibs, no projection whatsoever.
Just ASW frigates, SSNs and SSBNs and minelayers/sweepers.
We’d just need an air force concerned solely with AD and armed with nuclear tipped AAMs. No strike planes whatsoever. Likewise, just nuclear tipped SAMs.
The Army, could be reduced to the equivalent of the Royal Garrisons of old, simply manning SSM batteries to destroy any invasion force and ourselves.
All you’d need then would be the Civil Defence Corps, the Industrial Civil Defence Service, a Fire, Ambulance and Police Reserve and the Mobile Defence Corps.
That’s a proper self defence force. Nobody would come near us if the only way we had to defend ourselves was nuclear strike.
Hi James,
Call it “It may not be called SDSR 2013, but that’s what it will be” Next Steps…
@ Observer
You see where you are homeland defence sits on top of the list. But I just don’t get the feeling that the “UK” sees it as that important (in a physical or “kinetic” sense.) Talk of defence gets lost in meta-discussions about intangibles and intelligence pictures and working within coalitions to meet shared threats. It as if we regard ourselves in some sense as too big to be worried about the invader. Or should that be we are that big that there is no abroad because of the complex interactions of multiple actors exercising their agency over the UK. Perhaps being forced to put home island defence first would be an admission to our true status. And if that is true I still can’t see how we could get by without 100,000 man army, a hundred or so Typhoon, the deterrent, and our meagre navy (5 SSN short in A boat order, 2 AAW destroyers short, and what will be a botched ASW escort purchase.)
Saying that our Nordic friends take the idea of preserving the state very seriously.
PS: I am now obsessed with the UK’s lack of ISR satellite.
@Phil
lol By the looks of your defence force, any enemy coming near would die just by radiation poisoning.
Think your force is fine with ICBMs/SSBNs, the AAMs and SAMs are just fine conventionally, and remember what we were talking about over casual use of nukes? I’d hate to have my hands tied just in case I unleash doomsday by accident. With conventional AAM/SAMs I can simply fire to my heart’s content without worrying if people will see ME as the rogue state. Not to mention the contamination factor.
@Observer
The whole point is that your hands are tied. There is only one option. And it’s the big one.
Nobody would dare. There would be no ambiguity, no manoeuvring.
Just a trip wire.
Sound familiar?!