Tweet

Defence With A 'C'

15 Mar, 11 tweets, 3 min read

@thinkdefence

Today has seen one of those happy coincidences where two pieces are published on the same day and the suggestion in one might be used (with a bit of twisting) to address a perceived problem in the other. So let us start with the work by the venerable @thinkdefence /1

Here can be found his latest piece, on the subject of the MRV(P) programme: thinkdefence.co.uk/rethinking-the…

In it he says the following: "The hugely innovative UK automotive industry... is hardly troubled by the British Army, who needs to find again its industrial roots to exploit this embarrassment of riches it, for whatever reasons, has been recently unable to." /3

@CapX

And on the same day we have this piece from @CapX proposing a modern version of the Iwakura mission for the UK civil service:capx.co/after-the-pand… /4

If you don't know what that is, well, read the article. Can't say I agree with all of it, but the point is the general idea it's proposing (a modern day Iwakura mission). Which is where we go back to TDs comment about reconnecting the army with the UK automotive industry /5

In essence what I'm propsing here is that a way to achieve TD's end goal might be to put together something of a British Army equivalent to Iwakura; a large team of people sent out into the UK automotive industry to learn more about what it can actually do /6

This would cover everything from the industrial scale manufacturers of cars, buses and trucks, to the various smaller but highly innovative companies working in specific areas such as drive trains, suspensions, or even just engine sub-components /7

"Operation Iwakura" as I have unimaginatively dubbed it, should also take in high end sports manufacturers, including visits to F1 teams and the like, to get a better feel for what the absolute leading edge in automotive design and integration looks like /8

While they're there they may also take in some of the lessons on things like quality control, rapid prototyping and research investment. Equally they could come back demanding their own supercomputer and a tank engine made from exotic alloys... /9

But hopefully the main takeaway would be to achieve what TD is asking for; a better understanding by the Army of what is possible and what can be done domestically. The relationships/networks built might alone be worth the expense /10

See, I can make helpful contributions to an adult debate on occasion and I'm not entirely just jaded with the world of defence, so stop fucking moaning. Now back to shouting at ducks. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @defencewithac

Defence With A 'C'

@defencewithac

16 Mar

The Integrated Review looks like quite a weighty, boring document. So in that spirit I shall try and brighten up the experience by live tweeting my thoughts as I read. Don't expect it to be coherent, or to contain any dazzling insights, /1

For example, upon opening the PDF I see it's default formatted to double spread. I dunno who does that, the PDF maker or the web browser, but it's fucking annoying. #nospreadsasPDFdefault /2

We're on the contents page and we've already had "A force for good" mentioned. Oh shit. /3

Read 116 tweets

Defence With A 'C'

@defencewithac

25 Nov 20

It seems International Aid is the hot topic right now so I suppose I should do a thread to at least maintain some sort of veneer of relevance for the benefit of newer followers. So here we go, /1

IA has a bunch of problems associated with it, most of which come back to the word "credibility". A lot of this is to do with the wheres and the hows of UK aid. So let's start with the where /2

For example last year the UK's biggest destination for bilateral aid was Pakistan. The same country that was keeping Bin Laden tucked away safely all those years and has its own nuclear weapons program. £305 million. /3

Read 18 tweets

Defence With A 'C'

@defencewithac

25 Nov 20

With all this wrangling about what the Type 32 may or may not be, it might be worth noting something that Babock told investors in a recent briefing on the Type 31. /1

"This is a no-change contract, deliberately structured to specifically restrict customer change." This might explain why the government needs a Type 32, perhaps the RN desiring changes but having to wait to get them. /2

In terms of what Type 32 could be, if based off Type 31, remember that Type 31 is basically just a Danish Iver Huitfeldt class frigate with a bunch of shit removed above the waterline and more Brrrrritish on the inside. /3

Read 4 tweets

Defence With A 'C'

@defencewithac

16 Apr 20

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1250787071398219781

Thread time. You should read Maajid's thread anyway because I think it's quite interesting and shows that people outside defence Twitter are thinking on the subject, but I want to dive deeper into this specific statement about "preparing for war". 1/

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1250787071398219781

First, caveat emptor, let's be clear that you can discuss the rationale behind a nations actions without agreeing with or endorsing their strategy and methods. This shouldn't need stating, but hey, it's Twitter. /2

China might be preparing for war, but it's unlikely to be offensive in nature, at least in the sense of circa 1930s Japan. The Chinese Belt and Road initiative is a solution to an unfortunate problem of Chinese geography. /3

Read 17 tweets

Defence With A 'C'

@defencewithac

28 Nov 18

Right, let's move on to the treasury analysis. For reference the PDF version can be found here: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

"The analysis does not make judgements about any future UK Government policy decisions or responses" - Not a good start

From the outset the paper is quite transparent. It's going to attempt to show why the governments current policy approach to Brexit is the bestest. It is heavil tinted with political bias, which is precisely why the office for budget responsbility was set up.

Read 8 tweets

Defence With A 'C'

@defencewithac

28 Nov 18

OK. let's start with the Bank of England report. For reference here is the PDF if anyone wants to actually read the whole thing and not just the twitter highlights;bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/fi…

Let's start with a defence of the BoE. The banks analysis represents scenarios, not a forecast. This is an important distinction to make. A scenario relies on making a series of connected assumptions and then mapping out what happens from there. Here ends the defence of the BoE

The first critcism, as noted by many, is that the BoE only looked at negative scenarios. It did not consider any more positive scenarios that might come from a no-deal Brexit. The entire document as a result carries something of a natural bias.

Read 13 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Share this page!

Defence With A 'C'

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @defencewithac

Defence With A 'C'

Defence With A 'C'

Defence With A 'C'

Defence With A 'C'

Defence With A 'C'

Defence With A 'C'

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?