Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

UK military to get biggest spending boost in 30 years

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Thread on something very significant, the Treasury Green Book is under review, see thread below I recommend scrolling through it


Short version, out with Value for Money and Benefit Cost Ratio and in with Place Based Stragegy.

 
Thread on something very significant, the Treasury Green Book is under review, see thread below I recommend scrolling through it


Short version, out with Value for Money and Benefit Cost Ratio and in with Place Based Stragegy.


More of the eye-catchingly good headlines masking the eye-wateringly bad effects.
 
Thread on something very significant, the Treasury Green Book is under review, see thread below I recommend scrolling through it


Short version, out with Value for Money and Benefit Cost Ratio and in with Place Based Stragegy.

And the impact on defence is...?
 
To distort spending in a completely different and dysfunctional way than it currently is
And current spending is not disfunctional and distorted?
Wholly because of Treasury and MoD direction we saw the costs of T45, T26 and CVF spiral, and we are having for buy unwanted patrol vessels because the agreed number of frigates weren’t ordered to keep yards running. Astute also faced similar cost inflation for the same reason.
The Navy is incredibly lucky it had so much political clout due to the shipbuilding constituencies.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
And current spending is not disfunctional and distorted?
Wholly because of Treasury and MoD direction we saw the costs of T45, T26 and CVF spiral, and we are having for buy unwanted patrol vessels because the agreed number of frigates weren’t ordered to keep yards running. Astute also faced similar cost inflation for the same reason.
The Navy is incredibly lucky it had so much political clout due to the shipbuilding constituencies.

I just said that

The reasons you give for the spiralling costs are not exactly correct.

The cost of T45 per vessel was so high was because they severely cut the number of vessels built, 6 down from 12 which concentrated the devlopment costs onto fewer platforms rather than spreading the cost over a larger number.
The second failing was the political decision to go with the WR21s

The reason we ended up buying more Batch2 Rivers was, not due to spiralling costs but due to the delays in finalising the design (lot of two and fro-ing between Treasury and MoD on that one), the T26 build should have begun years ago except for these political and design delays. At the time the Labour Government had reached an agreement with BAE to ensure that they kept their workforce current. Without the B2s hundreds of trained shipbuilders would have been laid off and then hired/rehired and retrained years later, this would have added even more to the costs of the T26 build (as we saw what happened with in Barrow with the Astute Program). It was a make work scheme, to maintain skills and institutional knowledge. Not because insufficient frigates were ordered.

With CVF it was political dithering, the first design was chosen, then there was panic that it would cost too much at that size, so they lopped off a huge chunk at the bow and shortened her, the problem was this necessitated a significant redesign to address issues of stability, buoyancy, integrity aswell as having to reroute loads of systems to fit the new layout.

The next big issue to come along was the proposed change from the F35B to F35C, which halted the program, mid build resulted in another redesign, which cost around £250m, and when the Govt saw the costs of altering the now in build Carrier to a more conventional layout, made the Cameron Govt scream, and hurriedly start back pedaling.

With T26 it was a combination of design delays and panic over the costs, these are intimately tied together and can be blamed more on the political desire to be seen to be saving money and the need to alter things to meet that new restricted budget, than actual design issues - but tbf there were quite a few of those. (The reduction of T26 from 13 to 8 has thrown up a whole different set of political issues [Scottish Nationalist grievances that "We were promised 13 Frigates and we are only getting 8"

"Well no actually, you are getting 13 ships and 5 more, so that's 18 different ships, more tonnage, and more jobs spread over 2 sites instead of one. But you know, you can't make an obtuse Nationalists see reality" (waves at all the Brexit supporters)

So in the examples you cite, MoD and Navy is less to blame than the politicians in charge. The RAF, also ran into issues of political dithering interference and idiocy -Hello MRA4.

Now if you really want to have a go at the MoD, have a go at Land. Land is the most dysfunctional area of defence procurement at this time (and for some while) but even they have suffered form incoherent leadership and direction from their political leadership.

You'll find this all detailed in the relevant threads here on Arrse.
 
And the impact on defence is...?
Probably limited. Defence business cases often don’t focus on the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) because it is near impossible to quantify the benefit. Major equipment programs have always tended to be approved on the back of strategic objectives, rather than BCR. Take the carriers as an example; the entire program was justified on the back of the defence strategic objectives set out in SDR97, not on some nebulous guess at the unquantifiable benefit of the UK owning two carriers.

I think this review tends to move other government departments towards the way that the MoD approves projects. Just my view, with the rider that my knowledge and experience in defence approvals is now approaching 15 years old!
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
To distort spending in a completely different and dysfunctional way than it currently is

The current dysfunction, which is quite deliberate in my view, leads any investment to favour an area with higher house and property prices. Hence why 80% of such ends up in the South East and Stabbystan.

It also refuses to associate any likely increase in employment as a benefit.

Just the usual ways in which the cucks and weirdos of Stabbystan ensure that they get not just the lion's share of any government money, but the hyena's share too.
 
I just said that

The reasons you give for the spiralling costs are not exactly correct.

The cost of T45 per vessel was so high was because they severely cut the number of vessels built, 6 down from 12 which concentrated the devlopment costs onto fewer platforms rather than spreading the cost over a larger number.
The second failing was the political decision to go with the WR21s

The reason we ended up buying more Batch2 Rivers was, not due to spiralling costs but due to the delays in finalising the design (lot of two and fro-ing between Treasury and MoD on that one), the T26 build should have begun years ago except for these political and design delays. At the time the Labour Government had reached an agreement with BAE to ensure that they kept their workforce current. Without the B2s hundreds of trained shipbuilders would have been laid off and then hired/rehired and retrained years later, this would have added even more to the costs of the T26 build (as we saw what happened with in Barrow with the Astute Program). It was a make work scheme, to maintain skills and institutional knowledge. Not because insufficient frigates were ordered.

With CVF it was political dithering, the first design was chosen, then there was panic that it would cost too much at that size, so they lopped off a huge chunk at the bow and shortened her, the problem was this necessitated a significant redesign to address issues of stability, buoyancy, integrity aswell as having to reroute loads of systems to fit the new layout.

The next big issue to come along was the proposed change from the F35B to F35C, which halted the program, mid build resulted in another redesign, which cost around £250m, and when the Govt saw the costs of altering the now in build Carrier to a more conventional layout, made the Cameron Govt scream, and hurriedly start back pedaling.

With T26 it was a combination of design delays and panic over the costs, these are intimately tied together and can be blamed more on the political desire to be seen to be saving money and the need to alter things to meet that new restricted budget, than actual design issues - but tbf there were quite a few of those. (The reduction of T26 from 13 to 8 has thrown up a whole different set of political issues [Scottish Nationalist grievances that "We were promised 13 Frigates and we are only getting 8"

"Well no actually, you are getting 13 ships and 5 more, so that's 18 different ships, more tonnage, and more jobs spread over 2 sites instead of one. But you know, you can't make an obtuse Nationalists see reality" (waves at all the Brexit supporters)

So in the examples you cite, MoD and Navy is less to blame than the politicians in charge. The RAF, also ran into issues of political dithering interference and idiocy -Hello MRA4.

Now if you really want to have a go at the MoD, have a go at Land. Land is the most dysfunctional area of defence procurement at this time (and for some while) but even they have suffered form incoherent leadership and direction from their political leadership.

You'll find this all detailed in the relevant threads here on Arrse.

It looks like we are in the same page, though I don’t differentiate between the MoD, the Treasury, and the ministers that run them. There were very few technical reasons for 45, CVF or even the 26 to be late and over budget, which itself is a miracle for such large programmes. It’s was all down to managerial incompetence and financial mismanagement.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
It looks like we are in the same page, though I don’t differentiate between the MoD, the Treasury, and the ministers that run them. There were very few technical reasons for 45, CVF or even the 26 to be late and over budget, which itself is a miracle for such large programmes. It’s was all down to managerial incompetence and financial mismanagement.

It isn't incompetence when it is all in one direction, it's a plan. And has been for decades.

No the treasury wouldn't see any benefit in employing people who can build carriers, frigates and the like. Their sums deliberately exclude anything related to employment. Hence paying Polish welders less is not just deemed acceptable but actually preferable.

Well.... So long as it only disadvantages Northerners and the like.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
It looks like we are in the same page, though I don’t differentiate between the MoD, the Treasury, and the ministers that run them. There were very few technical reasons for 45, CVF or even the 26 to be late and over budget, which itself is a miracle for such large programmes. It’s was all down to managerial incompetence and financial mismanagement.

A fish rots from the head the British Military takes it's direction from it's political masters, as do almost all arms of government. It is not wrong to say that the last requirement driven Spending Review was 1997, it wasn't properly funded, bloody Brown. Every review since has been fundamentally been cost driven, with the goalposts not so much moved, but loaded onto the back of truck and taken on a drunken joyride to all points of the country.

As platform centric services the RAF and RM have been more successful in screwing down a plan, articulating it, and sticking to it, even though it is underfunded. The problems in the army stems from being fecked about royally and not being able to do the same (though they have created colossal issues for themselves which have been as dibilitating)
 
Last edited:
May have been discussed before but is that and AGM-65 near the left wingtip? It looks a bit small. Is that also a HARM?

48DF53FA-A788-4DFB-A793-6B7494F669B8.jpeg
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
It raises an interesting question: with the demise of Tornado, we don't have an airborne nuclear capability - or is our NATO/any other commitment covered by Trident?

(One of the dilemmas the Germans face is that they have a nuclear delivery commitment to NATO, hence the wrangling over an F-18 purchase.)
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
May have been discussed before but is that and AGM-65 near the left wingtip? It looks a bit small. Is that also a HARM?

View attachment 538856
Spotter hat on... from left wingtip inward, top row, you've got an IRIS-T air-to-air missile, an AGM-65 Maverick, a GBU-12 or similar (500lb bomb body with guidance kit), an AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon, then an AGM-88 HARM (followed by what looks like a Paveway III, a KEPD-350 and a targeting pod).

Now, what's the NSN for that thing called a "life" people keep telling me to get?
 
I suspect thats only true if you are counting the likes of Iraq in 91 in that figure



Really want to cite a source for that,

Regardless it ignores that unles you have a B52 which can carry a Tomohawk equivelant - you are limited to what can be lifted by a fast Jet type - Said missiles will be shorter ranged and so unsuprisingly the ability to penetrate defended airspace is required

Now a UAV could do this - but not youre cheap COTS wankwaffen




Your wunderwaffen Amozon drones can be jammed by an inconvienient phone single

Drones will require far more comms to control them so more suceptible to disruption
Drones especially your cheap 50K suiciders - will have limited power and options to change frequencies.
The ground station for your fantasy cheap wonder drones is equally limited

Typhoon - with its operator onboard - isnt so affected by jamming of Comms once its been assigned a target
It has far greater onboard power and can change frequencies at the touch of a button.

Drones which can do what Typhoon can are going to be similar in size shape and cost.





Yawn - strawman arguments delibertly obsfucating the point.



Until it isnt or you need to evade an incoming missile




Ah right - so youre calling for cheap uber drones because according to you Tanks, infantry , SAMS EW vehicles have all been smited with impunity .

Meanwhile its ridiculous to suggest A Drone launcher could be identified and smited from above - have you any idea how stupid you are making yourself look.



Strawman - No ones claimed that,

However we are back into the Why have Typhoon / F15 / F35 / bombing terry Taliban when a Hawk / Tuccano / Super Bronco could do the Job.

A much covered point which amounts to - because one can do peer the other cant and we can only afford to run one of them.

Of course as ever you ignore the (inconvinient) fact the RAF does indeed operarate slow long loitering armed UAS able to observe and strike against terry taliban.

I know very little about military drone control or telemetry, but I am reasonably familiar with communications technology in general.

This business of changing frequency. 2G mobile phones (GSM) introduced the concept of frequency agility. One of the key design goals for the system was to make interception more difficult. The prior analogue generation(s) had been ridiculously simple to intercept and spoof the signaling. We used to sit there in Blandford in the 90s listening to the girls’ phone conversations in their block with a rectum paralyser.

As well as digital, out of band signalling, air interface encryption, and a digital voice codec, the specification allowed for frequency agility. A basic Nokia brick phone could (and did) change frequency 217 times a second. There were several purposes for this, firstly as a defence against interception, as previously stated, secondly to average out interference across a number of (physically) adjacent channels, and lastly to retune to adjacent cells’ beacon frequencies to ascertain whether it would be better off handing off to that cell. A further bonus was Forward Error Correction, there was additional intelligence transmitted with every voice frame so that dropped frames could be reconstructed.

3G phones (2G in the US) brought in CDMA. Code Division Multiple Access. This was borne out of military technology, and transmits over a wide bandwidth simultaneously. The intelligence however is encoded onto a small number of sub channels in that bandwidth. The bandwidth of a GSM voice codec is just a few kHz, but the CDMA TX bandwidth is a few MHz. This “Spread Spectrum” approach makes it more difficult to intercept, because you need the “spreading code”. Additionally, the wanted signal is designed to appear as noise. Where to jam?

In 2001 I went to Romania to tech a course on this stuff to the local mobile operator. Most of their guys were ex-military, and knew about CDMA from Soviet comms kit.

My point therefore is that if you can make a $20 Nokia phone do all this shit 20 years ago, I would have thought there would be little problem in designing a robust control architecture for military drones.
 

Latest Threads

Top