General UK Defence Discussion

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

The worst thing we can do right now however is allow ourselves into a knee-jerk reaction. It's clear that the illusion of peace in Europe post Cold War has been shattered. There is no hiding from it now, an history will judge us, and find us wanting, if our politicians allow the status quo of ambivalence towards our hard power to continue.

But to those calling for the Integrated Review to be ripped up, that would be precisely the sort of knee jerk reaction we need to avoid. Respond to these events we must in terms of our posture and policy on defence, but that response should be informed, measured and considered.

We must resist the temptation to immeadiately look to policy extremes or to draw hasty conclusions and above all, we must avoid unecessary changes in direction. It is precisely a lack of consistency, and an inability to find and stick to a direction, that is a large part of why our nation's defences are in the state they currently are.

[Lord Jim]

Problem is the last review, whilst acknowledging Russia was a threat, seems happier to cast the UK's defence responsibilities far further afield and pivot eastwards to join up with the US, Australia, Japan and our other allies. This was already going to dilute our military which was already too small, and ignored the fact that the threat form Russia had been growing exponentially and that our response had been seriously underwhelming.

What I propose is not a knee jerk reaction but how we should have reacted after the annexation of Crimea, but it has taken the actual invasion of Ukraine to cause attitudes to really change at least on a political level. Whilst I do not think we can natch Germany's 100Bn euro increase in defence spending, we do need to both reprioritise our Defence Spending and revise the Equipment plan, with the £6Bn annual increase announced last year made permanent, as well as additional resources made available by the Treasury to fund UORs that are now urgently needed to both add and expand our military capabilities. Other Government Departments may not like it but Defence can no longer be seen as the easy target for cuts when they need money to cover their overspends.

As for the UORs, well it is amazing how fast a new piece of equipment can be delivered if purchased under this scheme compared to the usual procurement process. Plans were afoot to make the latter more akin to the former but like all changes in procedure within Government, this has been bogged down in red tape. The priority UOR I see is for teh Army to speed up Boxer procurement, and increase both the quantity and the configuration to be purchased. I would say at least six Battalions worth need to be purchased plus specialist vehicles for other units, and the Battalions need to be the capabilities required to make then viable combat units in themselves in a Peer level conflict. Programmes to make our Military a global power for good need to be reduced, with the exception of teh FSS and the CSG. We need to be able to be a power for good far closer to the UK in the foreseeable future.

[wargame_insomniac]

I am not yet convinced by Boxer for mechanised units in Armoured Divisions. Apparently that makes me a member of the tracked mafia.

Presumably the priority should be to cancel any cuts in manpower and at the very least postpone any cuts in equipment - Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shown that we can't have any capability gaps, let alone 10 year gsps until the 2030's.

How quivkly can the Challenger 2 tanks be upgraded to Challenger 3 specs? We should be trying to keep as many of them as possible, even if we have to cannibalise handful of the oldest hulls for spares.

Then the question would be how quickly can we deploy say an Armoured Division to say Poland or Estonia? Do we need to keep the heavy equipement advanced deployed, whether to Sennelager in Germany or maybe Poland? Then each Regiment should have the staff deployed by battalion in rotation to cover any UK training / leave.

Next should be what equipment do we need to purchase for UK based reaction force so that they can be quickly deployed to anywhere in Scandinavia / Poland / Baltic States. Do we have sufficient strategic / tactical transport aircraft to do this seamlessly? If this rapid reaction force is to be motorised Infantry Division, then IMO this is whom we should be outfitting with newly acquired Boxers APC.

And I think you mentioned on another thread about accelerating the purchase of Sky Sabre to cover both of the above Divisions, (and then next equip Sky Sabre units at any other foriegn bases such as Falklands or Cyprus).

We need to be able to ensure that we can make work thus theory of one advance deployed Armoured Division plus one UK deployed Rapid Reaction airlifted Infantry Division, with any other Divisions being capable of being moved via sea by Point Class, by ensuring that we test the above by exercise and then repeat at regular intervals (at least annually) to ensure that we can do such a deployment in practice.

[SW1]

I think it’s hard to draw conclusions or answers so early in a conflict but a number of change ideas/plans that have been formulated for how the U.K. military should look over the past 10 years have to an extent been arguably proven imo even though we seemed to have moved away from them as a result of lobbying from special interests.

What strikes me seeing all these Russian columns is what a field day brimstone would have.

[Tempest414]

Given the German announcement to up spending buy 100 billion for me we should look to have one off 30 billion uplift which should be for kit uplift like

Army

1 billion on Archer SP Gun
1 billion on Sky Sabre
2 billion on Boxer
1 billion on Bushmaster
1 billion on M142 HIMAS
1 billion on Aw-149

Navy

2 billion on 2 more T-26
2 billion on 5 more T-31
2 billion on 4 SSS
2 billion on weapons uplift
2 billion on Helicopters

RAF

2 billion on 20 F-35b
1 billion on P-8
1 billion Aw-149
1 billion on transport aircraft

4 billion on weapons uplift

[Tempest414]

I think it’s hard to draw conclusions or answers so early in a conflict but a number of change ideas/plans that have been formulated for how the U.K. military should look over the past 10 years have to an extent been arguably proven imo even though we seemed to have moved away from them as a result of lobbying from special interests.

What strikes me seeing all these Russian columns is what a field day brimstone would have.

or even a brigade of fast troops in land Rover WMIK's carrying 12.7mm and 40mm GMG plus each vehivcle carrying 6 or so NLAW carrying out fast attacks lasting 1 or 2 min's at a time

Also fast moving Mortar teams

[SW1]

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -23/128170

As of 23 February 2022, there are 43 Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles and 18 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks deployed in Estonia.

A further five Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicles and six Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks are currently in transit to Estonia, scheduled to arrive on 25 February 2022.

[SW1]

I think it’s hard to draw conclusions or answers so early in a conflict but a number of change ideas/plans that have been formulated for how the U.K. military should look over the past 10 years have to an extent been arguably proven imo even though we seemed to have moved away from them as a result of lobbying from special interests.

What strikes me seeing all these Russian columns is what a field day brimstone would have.

or even a brigade of fast troops in land Rover WMIK's carrying 12.7mm and 40mm GMG plus each vehivcle carrying 6 or so NLAW carrying out fast attacks lasting 1 or 2 min's at a time

Also fast moving Mortar teams

Possibly thought more RM or the like inserted covertly to identify targets for long range systems could have a similar effect.

Also wonder if training of Ukraine forces on more systems had been expanded would they have had more success.

[Tempest414]

I think it’s hard to draw conclusions or answers so early in a conflict but a number of change ideas/plans that have been formulated for how the U.K. military should look over the past 10 years have to an extent been arguably proven imo even though we seemed to have moved away from them as a result of lobbying from special interests.

What strikes me seeing all these Russian columns is what a field day brimstone would have.

or even a brigade of fast troops in land Rover WMIK's carrying 12.7mm and 40mm GMG plus each vehivcle carrying 6 or so NLAW carrying out fast attacks lasting 1 or 2 min's at a time

Also fast moving Mortar teams

Possibly thought more RM or the like inserted covertly to identify targets for long range systems could have a similar effect.

Also wonder if training of Ukraine forces on more systems had been expanded would they have had more success.

It would be interesting to know if they had any deep fires left looks like they still have MBT's on the battle field.

my thinking is smallish Platoon size units made up of 10 Land Rover WMKI type vehicles in 3 sections 2 fire sections and Mortar section using tactics like the 2 fire sections attack part of the column with the NLAW , 40mm GMG and 12'7mm HMG after 2 minutes they retire under cover of the Mortar team attacking another part of the column

and if the column is big enough then a company of the above coming together like a wolf pack and attacking different parts of the column could split it up

[wargame_insomniac]

Given the German announcement to up spending buy 100 billion for me we should look to have one off 30 billion uplift which should be for kit uplift like

Army

1 billion on Archer SP Gun
1 billion on Sky Sabre
2 billion on Boxer
1 billion on Bushmaster
1 billion on M142 HIMAS
1 billion on Aw-149

Navy

2 billion on 2 more T-26
2 billion on 5 more T-31
2 billion on 4 SSS
2 billion on weapons uplift
2 billion on Helicopters

RAF

2 billion on 20 F-35b
1 billion on P-8
1 billion Aw-149
1 billion on transport aircraft

4 billion on weapons uplift

That would be lovely - I suspect everyoe other than Treasury and the other spending departments would be glad of that spend. I am sure each of the three armed services would be delighted. However I doubt we could get such a large spending boost, given that our defence spending has been a lot higher than Germany in the first place.

And we would have issues with manning all that extra equipment, even though some of it e.g. any additional T26, won;t be coming into service until 2029 / 2030 if we are lucky.

So to me the priority is reversing or postponing all of the recent cuts, not accepting any multi-year capability gaps, even if it means that we have to keep some equipment going for a few more years (e.g. keeping HMS Montrose active beyond 2023, keeping HMS Talent / Triumph operational for a few more years, keeping RFA Wave Knight / Wave Ruler, reactivating HMS Bulwark, not scrapping the excess Challenger 2 tanks, not reducing Army nubers under Future Soldier Plan etc).

[ArmChairCivvy]

the priority is reversing or postponing all of the recent cuts, not accepting any multi-year capability gaps, even if it means that we have to keep some equipment going for a few more years

Agreed.
Future Soldier gets mentioned so often that I wonder why there is no thread for it so that the specifics could be touched upon... or have I missed something?

[SW1]

the priority is reversing or postponing all of the recent cuts, not accepting any multi-year capability gaps, even if it means that we have to keep some equipment going for a few more years

Agreed.
Future Soldier gets mentioned so often that I wonder why there is no thread for it so that the specifics could be touched upon... or have I missed something?

There is a future form of the army that would cover it

[inch]

How about even just negating the nuclear detergent out of the defence budget ,just that alone would help

[SKB]

Nuclear detergent?!



Cillit Bang is pretty good. But I think you meant nuclear deterrent.

[Tempest414]

The money would have to could from a loan and go on national debt freeing up the money already in the MOD to slow cut backs like keeping some type 23's the Waves and bring back Bulwark plus keeping the T-1 Typhoons and C-130's plus upgrading some of the UOR fleet

[SW1]

If money did become available for equipment in the army I would ensure the brigade combat teams announced in future soldiers all had log, signals, small UAVs and engineering to operate and deploy independently, I would accelerate boxer and mlrs and increase land ceptor. And if it’s still about fireshadow

Airforce I think I would accelerate protector and mosquito, as well as increase a400m and voyager fleets size and capabilities. I would very much like to get sentinel (in the upgrade config raytheon offered) or peregrine type aircraft but that maybe politically difficult as you’d need to buy new planes.

Navy I would add a ship/land attack missile possibly the Israeli offering. Speed up solid stores and unmanned mcm.

And have a long hard look at helicopters.

And a political doctrine change under no circumstances do u “invade” another country unless a government that enjoys majority support among the population asks you in.

[tomuk]

The money would have to could from a loan and go on national debt freeing up the money already in the MOD

Current UK debt is 2.2 trillion pounds the annual deficit is about 300 billion pounds arguably all current defence spending at 51 billion pounds is a loan. There is no money to free up.

[Tempest414]

The money would have to could from a loan and go on national debt freeing up the money already in the MOD

Current UK debt is 2.2 trillion pounds the annual deficit is about 300 billion pounds arguably all current defence spending at 51 billion pounds is a loan. There is no money to free up.

would you like me to reword my post?

[ArmChairCivvy]

If money did become available for equipment in the army I would ensure the brigade combat teams announced in future soldiers all had log, signals, small UAVs and engineering to operate and deploy independently, I would accelerate boxer and mlrs and increase land ceptor. And if it’s still about fireshadow

When we were still on 'TD time' the US did this, de-emphasizing the divisional layer and accepting that the total number of BCTs would reduce, if and when all were made deployable.

We have now de-emphasized the divisional layer, without getting anything 'in return'.

[SW1]

If money did become available for equipment in the army I would ensure the brigade combat teams announced in future soldiers all had log, signals, small UAVs and engineering to operate and deploy independently, I would accelerate boxer and mlrs and increase land ceptor. And if it’s still about fireshadow

When we were still on 'TD time' the US did this, de-emphasizing the divisional layer and accepting that the total number of BCTs would reduce, if and when all were made deployable.

We have now de-emphasized the divisional layer, without getting anything 'in return'.

Yes we’ve heard a lot this past week about how poor the advance and logistics efforts of the Russians have been, but it’s sort of gone under the radar about how long it’s taken us to assembly about a full armoured battlegroup in Estonia when some equipment was already fwd deployed and that’s not even mentioning our ship deployment which was worse.

[wargame_insomniac]

If money did become available for equipment in the army I would ensure the brigade combat teams announced in future soldiers all had log, signals, small UAVs and engineering to operate and deploy independently, I would accelerate boxer and mlrs and increase land ceptor. And if it’s still about fireshadow

Airforce I think I would accelerate protector and mosquito, as well as increase a400m and voyager fleets size and capabilities. I would very much like to get sentinel (in the upgrade config raytheon offered) or peregrine type aircraft but that maybe politically difficult as you’d need to buy new planes.

Navy I would add a ship/land attack missile possibly the Israeli offering. Speed up solid stores and unmanned mcm.

And have a long hard look at helicopters.

And a political doctrine change under no circumstances do u “invade” another country unless a government that enjoys majority support among the population asks you in.

The Integrated Review and Future Soldier programme had some good ideas but it was all cuts and restrictions today offset by potential promises in the future. If we can get each BCT readily deployable with separate specialist support groups you suggested like logistics and engineering, then that would be well worth it in terms of having modern and flexible forces.

Just don't try to do it on the cheap and spread forces too thinly which I fear was going to happen. I don't know how much additional funds might be made available by Treasury following this fundamental change in world order and security, but if they can avoid immediate cuts, and eliminate or minimise any capability gaps in the near future, then that would be additional funds well spent.

[SW1]

If money did become available for equipment in the army I would ensure the brigade combat teams announced in future soldiers all had log, signals, small UAVs and engineering to operate and deploy independently, I would accelerate boxer and mlrs and increase land ceptor. And if it’s still about fireshadow

Airforce I think I would accelerate protector and mosquito, as well as increase a400m and voyager fleets size and capabilities. I would very much like to get sentinel (in the upgrade config raytheon offered) or peregrine type aircraft but that maybe politically difficult as you’d need to buy new planes.

Navy I would add a ship/land attack missile possibly the Israeli offering. Speed up solid stores and unmanned mcm.

And have a long hard look at helicopters.

And a political doctrine change under no circumstances do u “invade” another country unless a government that enjoys majority support among the population asks you in.

The Integrated Review and Future Soldier programme had some good ideas but it was all cuts and restrictions today offset by potential promises in the future. If we can get each BCT readily deployable with separate specialist support groups you suggested like logistics and engineering, then that would be well worth it in terms of having modern and flexible forces.

Just don't try to do it on the cheap and spread forces too thinly which I fear was going to happen. I don't know how much additional funds might be made available by Treasury following this fundamental change in world order and security, but if they can avoid immediate cuts, and eliminate or minimise any capability gaps in the near future, then that would be additional funds well spent.

I think future soldier was about realism with what was on contract to an extent. There’s nothing particularly radical about it. I think there’s been army concepts of organisation that has been better than it at a high level over the past decade or so. fundamentally the army has to stop radically changing its mind every 5 years on how it will configure.

[Lord Jim]

Two things need to happen in the short term. First, the idea of having to wait at least a decade for teh transformation of the Armed Services, especially the Army need to be thrown out of the window, things need to happen much sooner. Secondly the Budget and the Equipment Plan are far too taught and additional funding needs to be made available to give the MoD some room to make the necessary adjustment to enable the above.

[SW1]

[Tempest414]

We really need to have 3 Fighting divisions made up of 3 BCT's of

1 x Cavalry Regt
2 x infantry Battalion's
1 x Artillery support group ( SP Guns , Air defence , UAV's )
1 x Logistics support group ( RLC , RE , REME , RMC , RCS )

1st division = 3 Motorized BCT's = Jackel , Husky , Foxhound , Bushmaster
2nd division = 1 x Aviation BCT & 1 Motorized BCT
3rd division = 2 x Heavy Mech & 1 x Deep fires BCT's = Ch-3 , Ajax , Boxer , M270 , AS-90

6th division = 2 x ISR Brigades the Ranger Regt and Special Forces