Well worth a read. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/04/us-navy-royal-rn-frigate-destroyer-submarine-russia-nato/. US Navy or Royal Navy – who’s best at hunting Russian submarines? Walk softly and carry a variable-depth sonar Today we’re going to discuss fighting Russian submarines using surf...

The reason for JEF was a group of 10 like minded nations that would come together to respond to or deter aggression using rapidly deploying forces with the uk as framework for it, along the Baltic, high north and North Atlantic. That grouping has been planning together for 10 years now. As that can...

10 reasons to be optimistic!

https://www.navylookout.com/10-reasons- ... oyal-navy/

SW1 wrote: ↑04 Apr 2024, 09:35
Sweden and Finland were part of the JEF since the beginning in 2014 so nothing has changed in that regard. The fact they are now part of nato also is a bonus

Not if you are a NATO planner!

Planning simply hasn’t caught up with events yet.

What does scale mean? No country is ready to act effectively in those regions at anything beyond a few thousand troops - maybe on paper but the readiness/kit/logistics to sustain a large operation beyond a battle group isn’t there. Therefore, it’s all relative. I’m pretty sure the Norwegians, Swede...

Because they are the artic and mountain warfare lead units Due to fact that NATO had a tiny land border in the Arctic. Now that Sweden and Finland have joined the majority of the land mass in the JEF region is in the Arctic or Sub-Arctic. If the Army isn’t willing to get persistently involved in th...

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Apr 2024, 20:17 The RMs main commitment is the artic if you think they have too many other commitments then the other commitments would go first

Why?

I'm afraid these days it would be little more than a re-enforced Commando, perhaps squeezed to two Commands at a push?? How long that could these days be supported way up in frosty north is debatable.... Exactly my point. The U.K. wants to lead in the JEF region but the vehicles and kit of the Brit...

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Apr 2024, 17:39 Is that not what all the exercises last year and this is about

Not on the scale required

If the Army had to deploy 1 or 2 Brigades north of the Arctic circle and sustain that deployment through an Arctic winter how would that go?

The simple fact is that the British Army isn’t equipped to do it.

SW1 wrote: ↑03 Apr 2024, 15:27 Its what being the framework nation means bring all the nations together go where the need is, command the operation and support it.

Can the U.K. reliably do that in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic?

There is little sign of that currently.

But we have also accepted leadership of NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence battle group in Estonia and we have signed specific defence treaties direct with both Estonia and Poland. So the focus is spread wider and hence more thinly than just southern Finland and Gotland. I’m not suggesting the Battle...

It’s not about moving a dial it’s about being there. If there is say 2000 uk soldiers on Estonias border and they are killed by a Russian attack the reckoning is that would cause a full response and they know Russia knows that too. The British Army isn’t big enough anymore to knowingly sacrifice 20...

…BBEF (Baltic British Expeditionary Force) is the future reason of the amphibious force, but that I think we all agree makes no sense. It’s a fair question. What should LRG(N) look like if it’s specifically designed to provide rapid transportation of troops and vehicles across the Norwegian coast/B...

So not the JEF region after all just the bits that best suit the narrative. Not at all. It’s the entire JEF area. In the same way that UK Battlegroups in Denmark and the Netherlands would be pointless is a single UK Battlegroup in Estonia going to move the dial? Deploying 2 or 3 rapid reaction Brig...

You dismiss a UK contribution to the 'continental land war' as pointless and a mere token but big up a similar contribution to the Nordics as as huge. A couple of U.K. Battlegroups in the Baltics would be irrelevant apart from boosting morale. It’s a token gesture. The question of securing the Balt...

tomuk wrote: ↑02 Apr 2024, 22:55 So by putting or small contribution into a smaller battlefield it makes it look bigger?

You will have to explain the relevance of whatever that means before I can respond.

OK 3 Cdo and 29 RA Cdo could do with few GBAD Vikings No argument. My point is: If the Army is concentrating of the JEF region and leaving the large land armies to continental Europe, how many Vikings will the British Army need? 5 of the JEF nations are in continental Europe. I know but deploying B...

Tempest414 wrote: ↑02 Apr 2024, 17:35 OK 3 Cdo and 29 RA Cdo could do with few GBAD Vikings

No argument.

My point is: If the Army is concentrating of the JEF region and leaving the large land armies to continental Europe, how many Vikings will the British Army need?

Tempest414 wrote: ↑02 Apr 2024, 14:15 Maybe the RM could do with some CAMM capable Vikings

Why RM?

It needs to be British Army now.

Interesting concept. https://www.stellersystems.co.uk/news/steller-systems-has-recently-built-and-trialled-a-6m-concept-demonstrator-of-our-19m-offshore-insertion-craft-the-demonstrator-has-successfully-proven-the-innovative-features-of-the-full-scale-craft/ 19m is an interesting size, suggesting 6x...

And where do you expect them to be based, in UK or Europe? Depends. The rapid reaction Brigades will be one of the UK’s biggest contributions to global security so just concentrating on Euro NATO isn’t enough. • 16AAB should be UK based but focused on Euro NATO, primarily in the JEF region. • 3 Cdo...

That’s one way to look at it and you raise valid points. The other way to look at it is to say that defence is being run too hot and there is virtually no excess to allow for a realistic rate of attrition in a conflict. Continuously running hot fleets is a peacetime luxury that goes out of date as ...

SW1 wrote: ↑31 Mar 2024, 18:49 Just sounds like a fantasy shopping list to me tbh

Looks like a solid grasp of the priorities to me.

Interesting how the RAF didn’t get much of a mention.

My thoughts are all over the place here and I’m know it’s a lot more complicated than I’m putting down here but I am sure the MOD could have put itself into a much better position to allow themselves to ask for this money. At least they are starting to articulate what is required that can’t be curr...

SW1 wrote: ↑31 Mar 2024, 11:17 Really is that all sensible on top of everything else?

I think the short answer is, yes, absolutely it really would be sensible.

It’s just time to fund it and do it now.