General UK Defence Discussion

[new guy]

Add on to the list:

[topman]

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... tober-2023

Roughly the armed forces shrank by around 7,500 in the year to oct.

[SW1]

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... tober-2023

Roughly the armed forces shrank by around 7,500 in the year to oct.

Simply isn’t sustainable.

[Ian Hall]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk ... 024-01-15/

UK defence faces 'inflection point' in dangerous world, minister Shapps says
By Elizabeth Piper
January 15, 20241:18 PM GMTUpdated 7 hours ago

[inch]

What' gets me is they know the dangers coming around the corner and yet STILL they don't increase defence budget and make immediate changes to try negate the impact it's ,UNBELIEVABLE and criminal , personally if a government knowingly puts the country in danger or danger is going to happen and knowingly do nothing about it in a timely manner resulting in a loss of life ,the people who were in charge should be charged and if convicted should go to prison

[topman]

That's nothing unbelievable about it, it's of very little interest to the public so therefore of little interest to politicians.

[topman]

[new guy]

great video.

[SW1]

….mass of what?

Virtually everything is too small.

Firstly the next SDSR needs to accept that the post Cold War peace dividend is over and a new settlement is required.

Secondly any review must conclude that NATO is highly limited in global terms and that global security structures that are reliant on international coalitions are unrealistic and will not pass the stress test of a real conflict. It will be the same 3 or 4 countries that will be expected to get involved and the rest will make excuses and look for ways to deescalate.

On top that if the US introduces a non interventionist form of isolationism over the next four years, what fills the void globally to protect the rules based order if it isn’t countries like the U.K.?

Whilst a return to pre 1990 levels is unrealistic at this stage it is absolutely realistic to start the process of undoing the effects of the disaster that was 2010.

It is government policy to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP when economic conditions allow. That amounts to an extra £10bn per year. More than enough to get the headcount back to pre 2010 levels after which the rest can follow.

Moved this over here because it’s more than mcm.

Virtual everything is too small because we are trying to virtually do everything! We shouldn’t be.

There was a new settlement in about 2020 in cash terms the defence budget is about the 6th largest in the world after the US, China, Russia, India and Saudi. You can’t compete on mass against countries who have populations off up to a billion people when you live in country of 65 million.

NATO is the North Atlantic treaty organisation it is limited geopolitical to the very area it is supposed to be, were we live and where 100% of all our goods and services enter and leave.

I would completely disagree that international coalitions are unrealistic. All our operations are in international coalitions. We could do with a heavy dose of not getting involved in things that don’t really have much benefit to us tbh.

I would suspect if Nikki haley is not the republican candidate in the US elections then the US becoming significantly less involved in Europe is a distinct possibility. It would mean we would need to pivot almost exclusively to Europe and the Atlantic.

If that does happen it’s not aircraft carriers, jets and tanks were the pressure will be felt. It will be in c2, strategic logistics, airborne ISR and special forces capabilities where it will be felt the most, should we prioritise to those areas?

SDSR wasn’t that bad in that it made a structure that was actually within budget and could be funded. The main problem was sdsr 2015 which added a load of stuff back in without budget or people to cover it. Were sdsr 2010 failed was it didn’t join anything up across the services and provide a robust long term plan. It just chopped what could be chopped quickest to save money quickest.

[topman]

great video.

I don't know much about him apart from what others have said but he's really clear about what is happening now and what state we'll be in in a couple of years.

[Repulse]

Virtual everything is too small because we are trying to virtually do everything! We shouldn’t be.

Agreed, without a clear strategy with priorities it’s all knee jerk reactions and doing things for maximum political rather than strategic effect.

There was a new settlement in about 2020 in cash terms the defence budget is about the 6th largest in the world after the US, China, Russia, India and Saudi. You can’t compete on mass against countries who have populations off up to a billion people when you live in country of 65 million.

Again agree - qualitative advantage is a must, combined with alliances and use of training / supporting proxies to do the fighting for you needed to meet our aims.

NATO is the North Atlantic treaty organisation it is limited geopolitical to the very area it is supposed to be, were we live and we’re 100% we’re all our goods and services enter and leave.

Yes, but the UK can’t ignore what’s on NATOs borders either. NATO should remain a defensive organisation, it’s one of its biggest strengths. What is needed are regional complementary alliances like JEF which can be more active without impacting NATOs core objective.

I would completely disagree that international coalitions are unrealistic. All our operations are in international coalitions. We could do with a heavy dose of not getting involved in things that don’t really have much benefit to us tbh.

We’ve gone through the Blair years of almost religious driven interventions pretending to be a mini world policeman, to an aversion under Cameron where we will not intervene at all, and if we do we do it half heartedly like in Libya.

We need to go back to hard nosed foreign policy based on our interests and take note of Lord Palmerston’s words - “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

I would suspect if Nikki haley is not the republican candidate in the US elections then the US becoming significantly less involved in Europe is a distinct possibility. It would mean we would need to pivot almost exclusively to Europe and the Atlantic.

The US will follow it’s interests - it is not in its interests for Europe to fall, but the days of supporting / paying for Europe’s defence are foreign policy aims are over. Regardless of who is in the White House this is a given and Europe as a whole has to take more responsibility for its defence and more modest in its independent foreign policy. That does not however mean it falls on the UKs shoulders, yes we have interests in delivering European security, but we do not have an obligation to carry the weight from Germany, France and Italy.

If that does happen it’s not aircraft carriers, jets and tanks were the pressure will be felt. It will be in c2, strategic logistics, airborne ISR and special forces capabilities where it will be felt the most, should we prioritise to those areas?

Let’s put kit aside for now, as I believe carriers are key for the UK. But it comes back to what is the strategy / priorities and what are carriers for in a UK context (they are not mini USN strike carriers). For me sea control of the North Atlantic and the ability for limited independent UK action globally (especially in defence of UK BOTs) when others interest do not match ours are in my priority list.

SDSR wasn’t that bad in that it made a structure that was actually within budget and could be funded. The main problem was sdsr 2015 which added a load of stuff back in with budget or people to cover it. Were sdsr 2010 failed was it didn’t join anything up across the services and provide a robust long term plan. It just chopped what could be chopped quickest to save money quickest.

2010 SDSR was all about cutting costs as quickly as possible. Regardless of your view the fact that we ditched the carriers and their aircraft, and kept the RM amphibious ships as is and the Tornado force, by a last minute intervention (and tried to hide it with unaffordable nonsense about EMALS) without it delaying the SDSR to ensure it was coherent says it all. Losing the MPAs is another example of the disastrous nature of this SDSR. Guess where we have ended up, and we have wasted billions doing what was inevitable.

2015 fixed some of the gaps, but the next SDSR has to be ruthlessly hard nosed, focused, realistic and transparent.

[SW1]

Virtual everything is too small because we are trying to virtually do everything! We shouldn’t be.

Agreed, without a clear strategy with priorities it’s all knee jerk reactions and doing things for maximum political rather than strategic effect.

There was a new settlement in about 2020 in cash terms the defence budget is about the 6th largest in the world after the US, China, Russia, India and Saudi. You can’t compete on mass against countries who have populations off up to a billion people when you live in country of 65 million.

Again agree - qualitative advantage is a must, combined with alliances and use of training / supporting proxies to do the fighting for you needed to meet our aims.

NATO is the North Atlantic treaty organisation it is limited geopolitical to the very area it is supposed to be, were we live and we’re 100% we’re all our goods and services enter and leave.

Yes, but the UK can’t ignore what’s on NATOs borders either. NATO should remain a defensive organisation, it’s one of its biggest strengths. What is needed are regional complementary alliances like JEF which can be more active without impacting NATOs core objective.

I would completely disagree that international coalitions are unrealistic. All our operations are in international coalitions. We could do with a heavy dose of not getting involved in things that don’t really have much benefit to us tbh.

We’ve gone through the Blair years of almost religious driven interventions pretending to be a mini world policeman, to an aversion under Cameron where we will not intervene at all, and if we do we do it half heartedly like in Libya.

We need to go back to hard nosed foreign policy based on our interests and take note of Lord Palmerston’s words - “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

I would suspect if Nikki haley is not the republican candidate in the US elections then the US becoming significantly less involved in Europe is a distinct possibility. It would mean we would need to pivot almost exclusively to Europe and the Atlantic.

The US will follow it’s interests - it is not in its interests for Europe to fall, but the days of supporting / paying for Europe’s defence are foreign policy aims are over. Regardless of who is in the White House this is a given and Europe as a whole has to take more responsibility for its defence and more modest in its independent foreign policy. That does not however mean it falls on the UKs shoulders, yes we have interests in delivering European security, but we do not have an obligation to carry the weight from Germany, France and Italy.

If that does happen it’s not aircraft carriers, jets and tanks were the pressure will be felt. It will be in c2, strategic logistics, airborne ISR and special forces capabilities where it will be felt the most, should we prioritise to those areas?

Let’s put kit aside for now, as I believe carriers are key for the UK. But it comes back to what is the strategy / priorities and what are carriers for in a UK context (they are not mini USN strike carriers). For me sea control of the North Atlantic and the ability for limited independent UK action globally (especially in defence of UK BOTs) when others interest do not match ours are in my priority list.

SDSR wasn’t that bad in that it made a structure that was actually within budget and could be funded. The main problem was sdsr 2015 which added a load of stuff back in with budget or people to cover it. Were sdsr 2010 failed was it didn’t join anything up across the services and provide a robust long term plan. It just chopped what could be chopped quickest to save money quickest.

2010 SDSR was all about cutting costs as quickly as possible. Regardless of your view the fact that we ditched the carriers and their aircraft, and kept the RM amphibious ships as is and the Tornado force, by a last minute intervention (and tried to hide it with unaffordable nonsense about EMALS) without it delaying the SDSR to ensure it was coherent says it all. Losing the MPAs is another example of the disastrous nature of this SDSR. Guess where we have ended up, and we have wasted billions doing what was inevitable.

2015 fixed some of the gaps, but the next SDSR has to be ruthlessly hard nosed, focused, realistic and transparent.

NATO is a defensive organisation, we would do much better focusing much more on being a defensive organisation. Things can happen on NATOs border doesn’t mean we need to get involved in them just make sure it doesn’t spill into NATOs area.

Security in Europe and the Atlantic (north and south) is uk security because we live here. The rest probably doesn’t matter if that isnt the case.

2015 didn’t fix gaps it created more because it added things to a force structure without budget or people to do it. It was worse than 2010. As I said 2010 was at least realistic in that is said this is budget this is the structure that meets that budget. I made no comment on that force structure make up that resulted other than saying it was not very joined up across the board with a long term plan which was its down fall.

The next defence review needs to be 2010 esq in that it is hard nosed about what force structure can be realistically afforded for the budget. It needs to be much better joined up and focus tightly on specific capability areas that maximise our national technological investment and where we will contribute to in coalition and expand those areas so it doesn’t create overstretch when we do. Beyond national requirements these areas imo would likely be what I mentioned previously.

[Repulse]

NATO is a defensive organisation, we would do much better focusing much more on being a defensive organisation. Things can happen on NATOs border doesn’t mean we need to get involved in them just make sure it doesn’t spill into NATOs area.

Afghanistan / 9-11 tried to broaden NATOs remit, it was at a time when people were questioning NATOs purpose - this was a failure and must never be repeated.

Having said that the Arab up risings were on NATOs borders, NATO (the west) jumped on the side of revolution whereas the status quo probably suited NATO the best. The failure in Syria was to allow Russia in - it can feel unpalatable, but NATO / the west need to be less dogmatic in these areas and be ready to work with people that aren’t natural bedfellows, as the alternative is often worse.

Security in Europe and the Atlantic (north and south) is uk security because we live here. The rest probably doesn’t matter if that isnt the case.

Yes and no. We live and are part of the continent of Europe, there is sense in pooling defence, it is in our interests. However, those interests are finite, like the US’s are, we shouldn’t be making a larger than reasonable contribution if others are not carrying their weight, as our interests are not only limited to Europe.

2015 didn’t fix gaps it created more because it added things to a force structure without budget or people to do it. It was worse than 2010. As I said 2010 was at least realistic in that is said this is budget this is the structure that meets that budget. I made no comment on that force structure make up that resulted other than saying it was not very joined up across the board with a long term plan which was its down fall.

I have a different view in that 2015 repaired some of the 2010 mess which was in coherent and criminal in its decisions. Yes, the Indo Pacific tilt was over done, but we are more engaged in the reason and have a new critical technological alliance in AUKUS which is exactly right. If the next SDSR rebalances the bluster with the money and leaves a coherent structure to meet the objectives set by a real strategy then it would be a turning point - until then we will continue to flounder.

[Tempest414]

….mass of what?

Virtually everything is too small.

Firstly the next SDSR needs to accept that the post Cold War peace dividend is over and a new settlement is required.

Secondly any review must conclude that NATO is highly limited in global terms and that global security structures that are reliant on international coalitions are unrealistic and will not pass the stress test of a real conflict. It will be the same 3 or 4 countries that will be expected to get involved and the rest will make excuses and look for ways to deescalate.

On top that if the US introduces a non interventionist form of isolationism over the next four years, what fills the void globally to protect the rules based order if it isn’t countries like the U.K.?

Whilst a return to pre 1990 levels is unrealistic at this stage it is absolutely realistic to start the process of undoing the effects of the disaster that was 2010.

It is government policy to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP when economic conditions allow. That amounts to an extra £10bn per year. More than enough to get the headcount back to pre 2010 levels after which the rest can follow.

Moved this over here because it’s more than mcm.

Virtual everything is too small because we are trying to virtually do everything! We shouldn’t be.

There was a new settlement in about 2020 in cash terms the defence budget is about the 6th largest in the world after the US, China, Russia, India and Saudi. You can’t compete on mass against countries who have populations off up to a billion people when you live in country of 65 million.

NATO is the North Atlantic treaty organisation it is limited geopolitical to the very area it is supposed to be, were we live and we’re 100% we’re all our goods and services enter and leave.

I would completely disagree that international coalitions are unrealistic. All our operations are in international coalitions. We could do with a heavy dose of not getting involved in things that don’t really have much benefit to us tbh.

I would suspect if Nikki haley is not the republican candidate in the US elections then the US becoming significantly less involved in Europe is a distinct possibility. It would mean we would need to pivot almost exclusively to Europe and the Atlantic.

If that does happen it’s not aircraft carriers, jets and tanks were the pressure will be felt. It will be in c2, strategic logistics, airborne ISR and special forces capabilities where it will be felt the most, should we prioritise to those areas?

SDSR wasn’t that bad in that it made a structure that was actually within budget and could be funded. The main problem was sdsr 2015 which added a load of stuff back in with budget or people to cover it. Were sdsr 2010 failed was it didn’t join anything up across the services and provide a robust long term plan. It just chopped what could be chopped quickest to save money quickest.

We need to stop fucking about and set our armed forces up to deal with core fighting ability

Army = 7 x Brigades = 1 x Deep fires , 2 x Armoured , 1 x Air Assault , 2 x Light Mech , 1 x SF

Deep fires = 2 x Cavalry , 1 x Infantry , 3 x Artillery
Armoured = 1 x cavalry , 1 x Armoured , 2 x Infantry
Air Assault = 1 x cavalry , 3 x infantry
L-Mech = 1 cavalry , 3 x infantry
SF = SAS , SRR , Rangers
Add to this 3 x theater support Brigades of 3 x Logistics , 3 x Engineer, 2 x REME , 1 x Medical

Navy = 2 x CSG , 1 x ARG , 3 x Patrol Sqns , 1 Logistics group

CSG = 1 x Carrier , 1 x SSN , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 , 1 x SSS , 1 x Tanker
ARG = 1 x LPH , 2 x MRSS , 1 x T-45 , 1 x Tanker
Patrol Sqn = 3 x T-31 , 4 x MR-OPV
Logs Group = 1 x SSS , 2 x MRSS , 4 x Points

RAF

4 x Fast jet wing = 3 x Sqns with 34 jets total plus a Engineering and logistic support group
1 x AEW - MPA wing = 6 AEW and 15 P-8's
1 x ISTAR wing =
1 x Airlift wing = C-17 , A400 , MRTT , VIP
1 x Helicopter wing 50 x Chinook , 30 x NMH

This would allow our forces to carry HMG's wish within reason there are other Units that are not listed here

[Repulse]

Ok you claim to know the answer, can you now explain the problem you are solving for and your workings, plus what gives (government spending/taxation) more broadly?

[Tempest414]

We also need to focus on two groups when it comes to fighting first NATO / JEF in Europe and second building and working alongside CANZUK in the Indo-Pacific that dose not mean we can't be part of other agreements but these should be our main fighting groups

[Tempest414]

Ok you claim to know the answer, can you now explain the problem you are solving for and your workings, plus what gives (government spending/taxation) more broadly?

What I have laid out above is core fighting ability and flexibility we need to defend the UK alongside Europe = NATO and at the same time keep the SLOC open = NATO & CANZUK

The Army must stand ready to fight in Europe supported by the RAF the Navies 3 x Patrol groups keep the SLOC open along side our allies in NATO and CANZUK and at the same time the CSG , ARG & Logs Group must be ready to deploy British force were and when needed globally

What I have laid out above works within the current budget and manpower thinking

In all cases the answer is always core fighting ability and logistic the question is always where and when the answer is needed and we never know

[SW1]

NATO is a defensive organisation, we would do much better focusing much more on being a defensive organisation. Things can happen on NATOs border doesn’t mean we need to get involved in them just make sure it doesn’t spill into NATOs area.

Afghanistan / 9-11 tried to broaden NATOs remit, it was at a time when people were questioning NATOs purpose - this was a failure and must never be repeated.

Having said that the Arab up risings were on NATOs borders, NATO (the west) jumped on the side of revolution whereas the status quo probably suited NATO the best. The failure in Syria was to allow Russia in - it can feel unpalatable, but NATO / the west need to be less dogmatic in these areas and be ready to work with people that aren’t natural bedfellows, as the alternative is often worse.

Security in Europe and the Atlantic (north and south) is uk security because we live here. The rest probably doesn’t matter if that isnt the case.

Yes and no. We live and are part of the continent of Europe, there is sense in pooling defence, it is in our interests. However, those interests are finite, like the US’s are, we shouldn’t be making a larger than reasonable contribution if others are not carrying their weight, as our interests are not only limited to Europe.

2015 didn’t fix gaps it created more because it added things to a force structure without budget or people to do it. It was worse than 2010. As I said 2010 was at least realistic in that is said this is budget this is the structure that meets that budget. I made no comment on that force structure make up that resulted other than saying it was not very joined up across the board with a long term plan which was its down fall.

I have a different view in that 2015 repaired some of the 2010 mess which was in coherent and criminal in its decisions. Yes, the Indo Pacific tilt was over done, but we are more engaged in the reason and have a new critical technological alliance in AUKUS which is exactly right. If the next SDSR rebalances the bluster with the money and leaves a coherent structure to meet the objectives set by a real strategy then it would be a turning point - until then we will continue to flounder.

9/11 didn’t expand NATOs remit at all, it was NATOs remit as one of the NATO countries had been attacked. Everything that took place after 2002 was where the problem started and where it had nothing to do with NATO. From 2003 onward it was everything to do with Bush and Blair.

No our defence interest in the European region is not finite like the USs are because they don’t live here we do. Like it or not that’s just reality. AUKUS, GCAP and the like are technology and industrial sharing programs for the benefit of all concerned they are not military alliances. Neither mean we are suddenly needing to defend each others country.

Just because 2015 sdr added some equipment procurement you liked doesn’t mean it solved gaps it did the apposite it created bigger gaps. It added more financial and personnel pressures onto a force and budget that didn’t have capacity and spread the jam even thinner. If they wanted to add things in 2015 they needed to scale back in others but they didn’t.

[Repulse]

NATO is a defensive organisation, we would do much better focusing much more on being a defensive organisation. Things can happen on NATOs border doesn’t mean we need to get involved in them just make sure it doesn’t spill into NATOs area.

Afghanistan / 9-11 tried to broaden NATOs remit, it was at a time when people were questioning NATOs purpose - this was a failure and must never be repeated.

Having said that the Arab up risings were on NATOs borders, NATO (the west) jumped on the side of revolution whereas the status quo probably suited NATO the best. The failure in Syria was to allow Russia in - it can feel unpalatable, but NATO / the west need to be less dogmatic in these areas and be ready to work with people that aren’t natural bedfellows, as the alternative is often worse.

Security in Europe and the Atlantic (north and south) is uk security because we live here. The rest probably doesn’t matter if that isnt the case.

Yes and no. We live and are part of the continent of Europe, there is sense in pooling defence, it is in our interests. However, those interests are finite, like the US’s are, we shouldn’t be making a larger than reasonable contribution if others are not carrying their weight, as our interests are not only limited to Europe.

2015 didn’t fix gaps it created more because it added things to a force structure without budget or people to do it. It was worse than 2010. As I said 2010 was at least realistic in that is said this is budget this is the structure that meets that budget. I made no comment on that force structure make up that resulted other than saying it was not very joined up across the board with a long term plan which was its down fall.

I have a different view in that 2015 repaired some of the 2010 mess which was in coherent and criminal in its decisions. Yes, the Indo Pacific tilt was over done, but we are more engaged in the reason and have a new critical technological alliance in AUKUS which is exactly right. If the next SDSR rebalances the bluster with the money and leaves a coherent structure to meet the objectives set by a real strategy then it would be a turning point - until then we will continue to flounder.

9/11 didn’t expand NATOs remit at all, it was NATOs remit as one of the NATO countries had been attacked. Everything that took place after 2002 was where the problem started and where it had nothing to do with NATO. From 2003 onward it was everything to do with Bush and Blair.

No our defence interest in the European region is not finite like the USs are because they don’t live here we do. Like it or not that’s just reality. AUKUS, GCAP and the like are technology and industrial sharing programs for the benefit of all concerned they are not military alliances. Neither mean we are suddenly needing to defend each others country.

Just because 2015 sdr added some equipment procurement you liked doesn’t mean it solved gaps it did the apposite it created bigger gaps. It added more financial and personnel pressures onto a force and budget that didn’t have capacity and spread the jam even thinner. If they wanted to add things in 2015 they needed to scale back in others but they didn’t.

To be honest SDSR 2025 is the one that matters, so let’s agree to disagree on the direction of 2015. I agree also that the problem from 9/11 was that it was used as an excuse for nation building and settling old scores - the world is a worse place because of it.

I do not agree however that the UK’s European interests are unlimited. Europe is a large continent - if for example Greece and Turkey are at each others throats should we care? Yes, we have more interest than the US - whose real interests are securing the Atlantic and trade, nothing more, but we should not be idealistic about it - no one else is.

[topman]

Ok you claim to know the answer, can you now explain the problem you are solving for and your workings, plus what gives (government spending/taxation) more broadly?

What I have laid out above is core fighting ability and flexibility we need to defend the UK alongside Europe = NATO and at the same time keep the SLOC open = NATO & CANZUK

The Army must stand ready to fight in Europe supported by the RAF the Navies 3 x Patrol groups keep the SLOC open along side our allies in NATO and CANZUK and at the same time the CSG , ARG & Logs Group must be ready to deploy British force were and when needed globally

What I have laid out above works within the current budget and manpower thinking

In all cases the answer is always core fighting ability and logistic the question is always where and when the answer is needed and we never know

Please explain, for the RAF, how does all that extra come in how many people we have now or even if we fill all the empty posts?

[Repulse]

Ok you claim to know the answer, can you now explain the problem you are solving for and your workings, plus what gives (government spending/taxation) more broadly?

What I have laid out above is core fighting ability and flexibility we need to defend the UK alongside Europe = NATO and at the same time keep the SLOC open = NATO & CANZUK

The Army must stand ready to fight in Europe supported by the RAF the Navies 3 x Patrol groups keep the SLOC open along side our allies in NATO and CANZUK and at the same time the CSG , ARG & Logs Group must be ready to deploy British force were and when needed globally

What I have laid out above works within the current budget and manpower thinking

In all cases the answer is always core fighting ability and logistic the question is always where and when the answer is needed and we never know

Please explain, for the RAF, how does all that extra come in how many people we have now or even if we fill all the empty posts?

I think the same can be asked for all three services.

[wargame_insomniac]

I think the same can be asked for all three services.

All 3 services already have a lot to be done with implementing current and imminent equipment orders at a time when all 3 services are suffering from both poor retention and be unable to meet recruitment targets.

For Navy (in no particular order):
-Lack sufficient number of F35's and lack many UK weapons yet to be integrated.
-Need rest of T45's to have PIP refit and also to do ASAP the announced BMD upgrade plus adding additional VLS cells
-Dwindling ageing T23 fleet requires finishing remaining LIFEX plus adding announced NSM Canisters and MK41 VLS cells, whilst waiting for
-long overdue introduction of two new classes of Frigate before the cost of running aforementioned T23's way, way past their OSD with costs escalating
-running even one at a time of the ageing Albions
- on RFA side lack crew to man all of the tankers and the one remaining FSS, whilst the long delayed replacement FSS are barely started construction

On Air Force side:
-fast jet fighter squadrons already pared to the bare minimum
-which will get worse if old ageing Tranche 1 Typhoons are retired before new Tranche 4 Typhoons have been even ordered
-lack of numbers of support aircraft like Tankers, transport aircraft, AWACS, and P8 Poseidon MPA.
-dwindling numbers required for fleet wide NMH due to small ad-hoc orders.

British Army side:
-existing contracts for Challenger 3 MBT upgrade, Ajax IFV and Boxer APC face delays and ever mounting costs but need to be brought into active service ASAP to replace ageing cold-war vehicles
-need new SPG, ideally with good proportion of local British build, but above all to get the right gun into British Army given the reaffirming of the importance of artillery in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and similarly
-to get as many M270 MLRS and support reload vehicles, all upgraded to latest standard
-add new vehicularised mortars and Anti-Tank Guided missiles based on Boxer and/or Ajax chassis.
-roll out land based air defence units with layers of cover, with existing short range Land-Ceptor system, need for gun based CIWS versus drones and unguided munitions, and new Medium / Long ranged SAM

All of the above whilst incurring huge costs to build the new Dreadnought class SSBN for UK's CASD, and also the highly expensive but vital UK contribution to joint 6th generation Stealth Fighter with Japan and Italy. And add some land based BMD radars and SAM's to protect the uk.

[wargame_insomniac]

The above is far from a complete or exhausustive list forany of the 3 services -just realised that I had forgotten to add design and construction of new AUKUS SSN, not to mention wider issues such as long delays in equipment refit and maintenance, or the awful state of the MOD's estates portfolio which is definitely big part in the services struggle with crew retention.

But to make the point that even without additional new equipment orders, the MOD and all 3 Armed Services have a long, long list of already announced and ordered new equipment to bring into active service.

Once all of the above list has been completed,there will no doubt be even further equipment projects that will be required ASAP......

[SW1]

If there is not a significant increase in cash and don’t see there being one then going fwd we need to do less.

Beyond national requirements we will need to specialise into specific capabilities that are requested the most from allies and that maximises our national technology investments, create depth in these capabilities so when offered as our contribution to coalitions it doesn’t create overstretch and are big enough to allow career development within them and then pay people appropriately for these roles.

What was offered to operation vertias would be a reasonable place to start for what some of these contribution capabilities areas might be.

[Tempest414]

Ok you claim to know the answer, can you now explain the problem you are solving for and your workings, plus what gives (government spending/taxation) more broadly?

What I have laid out above is core fighting ability and flexibility we need to defend the UK alongside Europe = NATO and at the same time keep the SLOC open = NATO & CANZUK

The Army must stand ready to fight in Europe supported by the RAF the Navies 3 x Patrol groups keep the SLOC open along side our allies in NATO and CANZUK and at the same time the CSG , ARG & Logs Group must be ready to deploy British force were and when needed globally

What I have laid out above works within the current budget and manpower thinking

In all cases the answer is always core fighting ability and logistic the question is always where and when the answer is needed and we never know

Please explain, for the RAF, how does all that extra come in how many people we have now or even if we fill all the empty posts?

All what extra apart from 3 AEW and 6 MPA platforms everything else is in place or has a program running and yes we need to fill posts and keep people we also know some of the problems like accomodation and for me this needs to be seen as a UOR across all 3 services with extra money from outside of the MOD budget now