Strategic Defence Review 2010

Discussion in 'Strategic Defence & Spending Review (SDSR)' started by Outstanding, Jun 3, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. So we are to have a Defence Review possibly overdue since the last one was in 1998.

    Should there not be fixed timetable for these things - if Governments have fixed terms of 5 years should we no have a defence review at least every 10 years with possibly less in depth Defence studies at each way point of the sitting Government.

    Perhaps we can help out the Coalition here by identifying the Structure, Key Areas, Future Strategy, Level of Ambition, New Requirements and subsequent Conclusion and recommendations.
  2. PMQs yesterday - Cameron effectively put DTR on the backburner until the SDR was available. Great news for the bidder's funding partners, I'll be surprised if they don't down tools and slap a compensation claim on MOD's doorstep.
  3. We should follow the US model of QDRs every 4 years or so - or make it 5 and link it to the Parliamentary term. As for compensation we should not shy away from using the SDR to break a few 'unbreakable' contracts - it would be far cheaper in the long run. Additionally, most of the companies that we would owe compensation to also need our business in the future - I am sure that it is not insurmountable.

  4. Is that why they are called Quadrennial?

    DTR is a big bag of purple balls. It was unaffordable anyway so breaking the contract may be a far better idea.
  5. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    If you are interested, the baselines for the review (which is the SDSR - Strategic Defence and Strategy Review, BTW, not SDR) is based largely on points made in the following three items:

    The recent Green Paper:

    This speech by Dr F when in opposition:

    This speech given by Mr Hague, also when in opposition:

    Going through all three of these gives a good indication of the main starting points for the SDSR. Interesting times ahead, especailly given that we have absolutely no chance of getting any increase in funding, are involved in a war, and have already spent lots of money that we don't have. Do not expect anything to be out of bounds, and expect many sacred cows to be turned into burgers.
  6. I would be delighted were that the case and that we would genuinely be approaching decisions from first principles but my Spider Sense is tingling on this one. I reckon the big decisions such as Carrier - and Carrier Strike capabilities, how much longer we can continue to keep up with USAF in terms of Day 1 capabilities and some of the other big ticket procurement items will all be fudged in some shape or form. We will find a reason to justify why 2 x Carriers is the answer but will then cut the stuff that would be launched from them, and thus end up with (yet) another sub-optimal solution. So, yes, I agree everything should be on the table and big, difficult, and extremely emotional, decisions should be taken. Will they? I doubt it.

  7. is it time again to raise the spector of disbanding the RAF. Much talk about 10 years ago as I remember.
    Fast jet to Navy (enabling carriers to be maintained)
    Rotary to AAC
    Bulk transport to Virgin (would have been BA but too un-reliable)
    Sky frieght/DHL everything else
  8. There can be no doubt that one of our greatest weaknesses is to embrace service internicine rivalries and each fight our respective corners - pinning hopes on defending each of the sacred cows. Meanwhile the Civil servants in MOD will divide and rule.

    For my money the 3 Service Chiefs should be far more imaginative and pbe provided with fresh thinking - perhaps from forums within JSDC - they should then agree (that is Agree!) exactly what their absolute Red lines are, and then defend them extremely robustly.
  9. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    I'm pretty sure that Dr F stated recently (sorry, can't find a link at the moment) that disbanding the Crabs was not on the agenda. Pity, but there you are.
  10. The Light Blue will stay, but may be much reduced and could easily lose the RAF Regt, despite their efforts at KAF.
  11. I doubt that the RAF Regiment will be disbanded on the basis that they have only just raised a new Sqn to cope with the operational requirements that they currently have.

    I am also sceptical about outsourcing to external contracts, which, in my opinion, have reduced the capability of the armed forces, not increased it, with my ex-regs moving into much higher paid civil service roles doing the basic roles they did as military personnel.

    What is actually needed is greater budgeting and LESS over-egged contracts that have poor release clauses, badly worded contracts that reward and demand further payment to the contractors when they make a cockup of the requirement, go over budget, and botch the servicability of the required item.
  12. There's currently a lot of talk in the media about the Government possibly looking at the Canadian model of reducing the deficit. I wonder if this will also lead to the Canadian precedent of the 3 services being combined into a sigle Defence Force (and their Paras being disbanded for being somewhat naughty)? :?
  13. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    The Canadians tried it, and abandoned it - we are not going to follow their example, I hope :)
  14. Plus the BBMF - outsource them to the National Trust? Emotive, but not core defence business.
  15. While the Canadians have in some ways returned to a tri-service structure, with a land force HQ (which didn't exist for many years), different service dress for the three environments etc, they haven't entirely abandoned the single service concept. For example there is only one medical branch, one intelligence branch, one logistics branch. Basic training for both officers and ORs is done at a tri-service establishment.