Another SDR snippet from the press, I know some of you will probably turn your nose up at me posting these but this is a discussion forum about the SDR after all 😉

From the Dail Fail

The Navy is expected to see Type 22 and Type 23 frigates retired, amphibious ships mothballed or sold, submarines scrapped and at least one naval base closed.

The Army will see two brigades axed, battle groups of Challenger tanks mothballed and artillery units altered to use unmanned aerial vehicles.

Submarines scrapped? First i’ve heard of that one but likely to be Turbulent & Tireless which were due to have been gone by 2013 anyway.

You see I disagree, an Army of 100,000 should be able to deploy 10,000 troops on a long term basis with ease frankly. Bare in mind that the 10,000 deployed in Afghan also includes Navy and Airforce and that for large periods of time the Royal Marines (not included in the Army 100,000) make up a large portion of the numbers. Currently there are 6 infantry battalions there, one of which is RM. This is out of 36 availible. Going by a rule of 4 the army alone should be able to deploy 9 infantry battalions long term and not even rely on the RM.

Oh, I think the deployment ratio should be much better, I just recall the Germans also having problems deploying their troops considering the personnel numbers they have. Was just indicating I don’t think it’s a British thing at all

Roll on the 20th October so we can see the proper details as at the moment we have lots and lots of different rumours, partial scenarios and comments.

We should know sooner than that the basic premise of the SDR. After this Tuesday certain decisions will have been taken by the NSC and are bound to be leaked. Fox himself has already leaked that we’ll continue with the F35, and that the UK will have ‘global projection’

I’m sure (well, I hope!) what we’re hearing in the media is the worst case scenario.

More SDR talk in the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/24/trident-delay-defence-review

* Plans for the first carrier, Queen Elizabeth, due to enter service in 2015-16, will go ahead, but the capacity of the second – to be called Prince of Wales – will be severely reduced and the project delayed

* The navy will have to forfeit a significant number of the 18 new frigates it wants and also possibly reduce its planned fleet of six new £1bn- a-piece Type 45 destroyers

* The navy’s fleet of landing dock vessels and supply ships is also expected to be cut.

Not sure the writer of this piece is that knowledgable. T45 is all but paid for with only HMS Duncan to be launched. Probably getting confused with the T42’s. And what is ‘severely reduced’ for PoW? First time i’ve heard of a possible delay on PoW – yet more money burnt for nothing by adding to the build time?

I don’t believe the T45 story as the RN would give up T42 and any frigates before losing one.

The downgrading of PoW does tie in with Nick Harveys statement the other day though. Wonder whether this is a downgrade to a JC style ship or simply an MoD ruse that gets the treasury thinking a CVF designated as LPH is a downgrade!

However, i find it indeed quite astonishing that the UK is unable to deploy more than 10.000 men and, tomorrow, more than 6000. A brigade is around 5000 men worth.

That is on a long term sustained basis, it could surge 35,000 for a short term action. I’d be highly surprised if many other countries besides the US didn’t have logistics difficulties sustaining 10k of troops on the other side of the world for near on a decade.

And exactly what say doyou think Nick Clegg has?

He’s the Deputy PM and is on the NSC!! And yes, I did say beware it was the Sun! It would not surprise me if that is the general tone of the thinking though.

Meanwhile a few snippets from stories in the Times…

Dr Fox promised that Britain would retain the ability to mount medium-scale operations overseas, but not, in the future, those at the level of the Afghanistan mission, in which 10,000 British Service personnel are involved. He envisaged that the review would provide manpower for any future operation involving about 6,000 troops in a campaign sustained for a reasonable length of time.
Although the Strategic Defence and Security Review is still “weeks away”, Dr Fox also promised that Britain would continue with the Joint Strike Fighter programme — the combat aircraft to serve on the two proposed 65,000-tonne carriers.

In his briefing to Mr Gates, Dr Fox outlined how the Government planned to maintain an “adaptive defence posture” that will allow Britain to play a role in facing global security threats but without committing too many of the available forces to overseas operations over any length of time.
He rejected any notion of a defence posture based on “Fortress Britain” just guarding the nation’s own borders.
Dr Fox made it clear that the three Services would suffer cutbacks in different ways and on different scales. He dismissed the idea of the “so-called equal pain option”.
He said: “My job is not primarily to keep the Services happy but to keep the United Kingdom safe and to make the decisions that are needed in the round to protect our citizens, and this cannot be based on any sentiment about a particular Service.

T&T OPV’s much use to the RN possibly? Don’t think they have a hangar do they?

Good post, nocutstoRAF and that is where my gut would be sensing at this point – the probability of a one Carrier + something else (to fulfill the industrial work project). My thinking would be that ‘something else’ should be an extra SSN or two

Won’t be SSN’s – they’re built at a different location in the UK.