"Boris Johnson to take aim at MoD over wasted cash..."

No, they don't. The Navy (bizarrely) doesn't have real control over the Submarine Delivery Agency that owns the budget for these.
Not really in the least bit concerned with your opinions.

But for the record

"The SDA works closely with its customers, the Defence Nuclear Organisation and Navy Command, to deliver their materiel requirements. These are laid out in Submarine Acquisition and Support Plans (SASPs) which will formally be agreed at the start of each financial year. Once in place, the Chief Executive will be accountable to the SDA’s customers for the delivery of outputs in the SASPs. In turn, the Defence Nuclear Organisation and Navy Command will ensure that they provide the funding and resources and undertake the activities specified in the SASPs to ensure that the outputs can be delivered. "
 
Last edited:
Not really in the least bit concerned with your opinions.

But for the record

"The SDA works closely with its customers, the Defence Nuclear Organisation and Navy Command, to deliver their materiel requirements. These are laid out in Submarine Acquisition and Support Plans (SASPs) which will formally be agreed at the start of each financial year. Once in place, the Chief Executive will be accountable to the SDA’s customers for the delivery of outputs in the SASPs. In turn, the Defence Nuclear Organisation and Navy Command will ensure that they provide the funding and resources and undertake the activities specified in the SASPs to ensure that the outputs can be delivered. "
My giveaf8ckometer is equally respectful of your opinions. Haven't you got some shirtsleeves to be measuring? Or sandwich etiquette policy to write? Perhaps writing a letter to that nice Mr Hastings as to how the nasty navy bullies you and spends all your money.

Fact remains, Navy Command while setting the requirement for the performance and delivery of the boats and owning the TLB, are not flush with civil engineers and therefore not capable of controlling civil engineering infrastructure projects of that type. Particularly when primarily on OEM premises. They rely on the other organisations identified to do that for them.

It's a bit like expecting the army which sets performance requirements but is short of any sort of engineers to control an armoured vehicle manufacturing programme that could deliver capability, based on largely off the shelf solutions on time and to cost. Oh, wait.

Must have been the carriers fault.......
 

Donny

ADC
Reading that it sounds like someones making a mountain out of a molehill.
If you have the chiefs (including CDS apparently) trying to steer the Review in one direction, and senior officials including the National Security Adviser/Cabinet Secretary trying to go in a different direction then it’s probably more than a molehill. Whether it’s a mountain and if so, how big, remains to be seen, but it’s a pretty fundamental difference of view with lots of politics tied up in it.

if the politicians call it wrong then you could see VVSOs resigning and that wouldn’t be a comfortable experience for a Tory government looking to their natural base. It’ll be interesting to see if it’s managed away, or actually resolved
 
HOW DARE YOU!
As we speak, careers are being forged around planning to fight the evil Russian hordes on the sweeping plains of Latvia!
Cant you see it now, 100 tanks, sweeping majestically across the the Suwalki Gap like a herd of armoured wilderbeasts
That's useful, seeing as the Suwalki Gap is between Lithuania and Poland. SoI/Meerkatz/PhotEx armchair generalship at its finest!
 
Last edited:
If you have the chiefs (including CDS apparently) trying to steer the Review in one direction, and senior officials including the National Security Adviser/Cabinet Secretary trying to go in a different direction then it’s probably more than a molehill. Whether it’s a mountain and if so, how big, remains to be seen, but it’s a pretty fundamental difference of view with lots of politics tied up in it.

if the politicians call it wrong then you could see VVSOs resigning and that wouldn’t be a comfortable experience for a Tory government looking to their natural base. It’ll be interesting to see if it’s managed away, or actually resolved
I would actually expect that at every Review tbh, reviews are the opportunity for the Service Chiefs to state their case and the Government officials etc to get behind either what they've been told to by the Treasury or whatever is the current best thing since sliced bread.

Unless or until the Chancellor has said exactly how much is available for Defence it will remain the same, battling over what is wanted against what is actually needed hasn't happened for absolutely years, it's been you can only spend this much now go and work out what you can do with it for several governments now, beancounterville!
 
That's useful, seeing as the Suwalki Gap is between Lithuania and Poland.
you are aware the cunning plan is to drive all the way across EUropa to defeat the perfidious Russians dans le Baltic’s, and that will indeed feature herds of tanks, sweeping majestically across the Suwalki Gap.
 
It's the RN as far as I am concerned, they are the customer and control the procurement which those other departments/organisations deliver on their behalf.
Come on now. You have been here long enough to know that all Army procurement issues are the fault of the Army and the Army alone, whilst all Navy procurement issues are the fault of someone else entirely.

i read it on one of Jim’s blogs.
 
My giveaf8ckometer is equally respectful of your opinions. Haven't you got some shirtsleeves to be measuring? Or sandwich etiquette policy to write? Perhaps writing a letter to that nice Mr Hastings as to how the nasty navy bullies you and spends all your money.

Fact remains, Navy Command while setting the requirement for the performance and delivery of the boats and owning the TLB, are not flush with civil engineers and therefore not capable of controlling civil engineering infrastructure projects of that type. Particularly when primarily on OEM premises. They rely on the other organisations identified to do that for them.

It's a bit like expecting the army which sets performance requirements but is short of any sort of engineers to control an armoured vehicle manufacturing programme that could deliver capability, based on largely off the shelf solutions on time and to cost. Oh, wait.

Must have been the carriers fault.......
Bore off
 
Come on now. You have been here long enough to know that all Army procurement issues are the fault of the Army and the Army alone, whilst all Navy procurement issues are the fault of someone else entirely.

i read it on one of Jim’s blogs.
That’s probably very true.
 
Please excuse the Iranian source, but it does at least get around The Times' pay wall, on a subject that has otherwise gone dark in the MSM.

'Prime Minister, Boris Johnson’s much-vaunted defence and security review is descending into chaos, in large measure because of the incoherence at the heart of government.

'According to the Times newspaper, the chaos has intensified since the departure of Christopher Brannigan, the defence lead at Downing Street’s policy unit. Brannigan left last week, in large measure because of the lobbying of the PM’s highly controversial chief strategist, Dominic Cummings. The foreign policy, defence and security review under consideration is part of Jonson’s plan to conduct the most sweeping review of the UK’s defence capabilities since the conclusion of the Cold War three decades ago.

'The PM first announced the intention to conduct the review during campaigning for last December’s general election. The Times reports that since the Tories’ election victory, “disagreements” have erupted over appointments to key panels and timetables. The news paper quotes a source as claiming: “There are a series of rows and some nasty internal politics that have raged over the forthcoming integrated review”. Another source told the newspaper that there is uproar about a series of “has-beens” who have been appointed to the review.

'Meanwhile, the Times defence editor, Lucy Fisher (the author of the report), has tweeted that a “Whitehall source” is complaining about the possibility of the review not being sufficiently focused on foreign policy. In another tweet, Fisher quotes Lord Alan West, the former chief of the Royal Navy, who has hawkish views on defence and foreign policy, complaining about a “nasty atmosphere” at Number 10 Downing Street. Lord West’s complaint is presumably a thinly veiled reference to the maverick and disruptive Cummings.'


 
Please excuse the Iranian source, but it does at least get around The Times' pay wall, on a subject that has otherwise gone dark in the MSM.

'Prime Minister, Boris Johnson’s much-vaunted defence and security review is descending into chaos, in large measure because of the incoherence at the heart of government.

'According to the Times newspaper, the chaos has intensified since the departure of Christopher Brannigan, the defence lead at Downing Street’s policy unit. Brannigan left last week, in large measure because of the lobbying of the PM’s highly controversial chief strategist, Dominic Cummings. The foreign policy, defence and security review under consideration is part of Jonson’s plan to conduct the most sweeping review of the UK’s defence capabilities since the conclusion of the Cold War three decades ago.

'The PM first announced the intention to conduct the review during campaigning for last December’s general election. The Times reports that since the Tories’ election victory, “disagreements” have erupted over appointments to key panels and timetables. The news paper quotes a source as claiming: “There are a series of rows and some nasty internal politics that have raged over the forthcoming integrated review”. Another source told the newspaper that there is uproar about a series of “has-beens” who have been appointed to the review.

'Meanwhile, the Times defence editor, Lucy Fisher (the author of the report), has tweeted that a “Whitehall source” is complaining about the possibility of the review not being sufficiently focused on foreign policy. In another tweet, Fisher quotes Lord Alan West, the former chief of the Royal Navy, who has hawkish views on defence and foreign policy, complaining about a “nasty atmosphere” at Number 10 Downing Street. Lord West’s complaint is presumably a thinly veiled reference to the maverick and disruptive Cummings.'



In fairness to Lord West, who generally strikes me as questionable, Cummings is clearly a total ****
 
BoJo and Cummings vs. the MoD/FCO blob.

The latter will win all day, every day.
 
Defence is unlikely to win out of this review. The facts that our domestic security services would be swamped if 20 or so convicted terrorists are release early versus Defence's alleged ability to deploy an armoured division globally...who is going to win the funding argument?
 
Defence is unlikely to win out of this review. The facts that our domestic security services would be swamped if 20 or so convicted terrorists are release early versus Defence's alleged ability to deploy an armoured division globally...who is going to win the funding argument?
there are VSO’s determined to sieze this opportunity to make proper and long overdue changes to the structure and organisation of HM armed forces, but they are fighting an establishment fighting a furious action to preserve the status quo.
 
What fundamental changes would you propose?
Here's a bit of Sunday morning heresy...

no-one will notice one more division in Central Europe but losing the Atlantic would sever NATO in two and lead to rapid defeat.....
This is not original. It is just a partial return to the UK’s historic posture of having balance between land and sea power. It was only our decision in the First World War to commit to a debilitating continental commitment which shifted the balance towards the land. And while land power gets us involved in messy stalemates in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, sea power can enable true global reach and influence.

Of course the change would see the loss of some important capabilities. In particular we would no longer be able to conduct a major land intervention without a multi-year lead time. That would be a loss, but not a vital one, and certainly not one that threatens our safety. In wartime so long as our sea power holds the ring we can build an army, but if we lose the sea then no army, of any size, can be of use.

This is not an argument against land power in general. For Poland, for example, with long and vulnerable land borders, the vital requirement is land power.

But Britain is an island. Our vital interests require sea power above all else. That is where our resources should be focused.
 
Here's a bit of Sunday morning heresy...

no-one will notice one more division in Central Europe but losing the Atlantic would sever NATO in two and lead to rapid defeat.....
This is not original. It is just a partial return to the UK’s historic posture of having balance between land and sea power. It was only our decision in the First World War to commit to a debilitating continental commitment which shifted the balance towards the land. And while land power gets us involved in messy stalemates in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, sea power can enable true global reach and influence.

Of course the change would see the loss of some important capabilities. In particular we would no longer be able to conduct a major land intervention without a multi-year lead time. That would be a loss, but not a vital one, and certainly not one that threatens our safety. In wartime so long as our sea power holds the ring we can build an army, but if we lose the sea then no army, of any size, can be of use.

This is not an argument against land power in general. For Poland, for example, with long and vulnerable land borders, the vital requirement is land power.

But Britain is an island. Our vital interests require sea power above all else. That is where our resources should be focused.
Ah yes, the naval lobby's fallacy that building an army is relatively simple.

Using manpower levels to determine our levels of investment in the vital and important is farcical, as the return from manpower is different in each domain (50 blokes gives you the ability to man a minehunter at sea - which is a noticeable return . On the land it gives you a platoon plus which can fortify a farm complex - which is not). Just because 83000 is a large slice of current UK defence manpower does not make 83000 a big army - it is historically the smallest standing army the UK has had since the 17th century

The article sweeps aside the requirement for a Divisional capability by stating that no-one would miss another Div in Central Europe. However it fails to understand that there are currently very few capable Divs in NATO. This article relegates the UK to the periphery of NATO, to an enabling organisation expecting other nations to do the heavy lifting.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top