13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
HMArmedForcesReview
HMArmedForcesReview
October 21, 2015 5:47 am

Where did you find this

Not a Boffin
Not a Boffin
October 21, 2015 9:25 am

Published on (or just before) before entry to Helmand and long before SDSR2010 and its force structure decisions, it would be surprising if it was anywhere near on track.

But if you look towards the end of it, you can see most of what’s there still in the programme, if a little delayed. The only real gap is MARS solid support.

Chris
Editor
Chris
October 21, 2015 10:13 am

I have to admit the content of the document was not as expected. I thought there would have been carefully documented inputs (the ‘what’ as described in the introduction) with definite statements of the means to deliver the capabilities and the key dates to hit in order to stick to the plan. Instead I found myself playing Buzzword Bingo* page after page, clawing through Mission Statements and business development waffle. Pages 16 to 19 offer the nearest thing to a plan, but so vague as to never risk real life progress being measured against it. Maybe if the reader is tuned-in they can get useful information from the document; I’m afraid I saw it as a warm & fuzzy PR flyer.

*In a supposedly serious corporate meeting to the entire staff on site, an exec from the head office was delivering an earnest presentation urging the workforce to double their efforts for some reason or another. In a pause that the speaker had left for dramatic emphasis of a very serious point, from the back of the room there was an excited “House!” I doubt the speaker understood what the audience understood, but the stormy expression suggested he wasn’t best pleased.

WiseApe
October 21, 2015 3:52 pm

What pray tell is our “Transitional Littoral Manoeuvre Capability?” At least they spelt “manoeuvre” correctly.

Peter Elliott
October 21, 2015 4:36 pm

I guess the “Transitional” bit is using Merlins instead of Sea Kings. The “Final” bit would involve Chinooks off QEC.

One thing I noticed was thet were still talking about procuring ‘Fast Landing Craft” which seems to have fallen by the wayside. (I think NAB told us that the fuel consumption from the operating scenario turned out to be prohibitively high – Damn logistics huh?)

Hohum
Hohum
October 21, 2015 4:46 pm

Nothing has been done about the assault craft fleet, fast or otherwise, the money clearly went elsewhere.

Not a Boffin
Not a Boffin
October 21, 2015 5:05 pm

Fuel consumption from fast LC isn’t really a problem. Cost of high-power engines and appropriate crew training to operate real high-speed craft with big payloads might be.

If memory serves, the key to the term transitional was beginning to get OTH assault capability on the way to full-up STOM, STOM, STOM, STOM, STOM, STOM, STOM wonderful STOM, STOM, STOM, STOM etc, with a proper Joint seabase as well. It’s also worth pointing out the “regenerate LitM” bit in the short term, which was all about trying to get 3Cdo and CHF back to a primary amphibious focus after various commitments on TELIC and the first planned HERRICK deployment of 3 Cdo. That didn’t work so well…….

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
October 22, 2015 4:02 am

A good aspiration (to meet in the 2021-2024 time frame):
– max load 2 Cdo Groups
– initial (simultaneous) wave: 3 Coy’s
– ability to reach 80nm inland (not spealt out what the trade off between this and initiating from OTH would be)

Stephen Barnard
Stephen Barnard
October 22, 2015 4:22 pm

Wonder how expensive the Russian ZUBRs are to fuel and maintain(?)

stephen duckworth
October 22, 2015 4:35 pm

@Stephen Barnard
We could ask the Greeks as they own and operate 4 ZUBR.

Martin
Martin
October 24, 2015 10:28 am

It’s when you read documents like this that you realise why the MOD is so f**ked. Page after page of nonsense and not a single thing in it that one could say was an actual plan. No doubt it was overseen by a two star with several Consultants providing “valuable” insight charging around £1,000 per hour and a project team of 50 or more.

I’m guessing the cost of this drivel is in excess of £1 million.

Obviously things have now moved on at the MOD and no doubt a similar document today would also have to have a lesbian and gay ethnic diversity coordinator as well as a separate team to determine its impact on government carbon emissions.

Perhaps this explains why we get so little bang for our buck compared to other militaries. Don’t seem to see all of these style documents from the French.

mickp
mickp
October 24, 2015 11:26 am

, agreed. A current document would also have tables measuring capabilities v common objects, e.g. double decker buses etc