Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

[/quote] I&W[/quote]

How? By the crew relaying gossip from the long bar at Raffles?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote:What is the high end of Fisheries Protection? Do you mean offshore?
Yes I think a RN contribution to fisheries is useful where distance and 'force' is required. I agree that supercharged coastguard for EEZ fisheries/customs/border would be best.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Only 14 escorts are not enough to ensure the safety of the CVF's and the CASD so asking even more of this escort force is unwise IMO.

The priority for the T23ASW/T26/T45's must remain the safety of the CSG and CASD,.
I agree things are stretched and more escorts are key. But covering the CSG and other tasks isn't so binary. Both CSG won't be deployed together or if so only for short overlaps, escorts can break of from the CSG and deployments can vary in length. This and better availability and some forward deploying should provide more flexibility.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

tomuk wrote:
I&W[/quote]

How? By the crew relaying gossip from the long bar at Raffles?[/quote]

Orchard Tower more likely ;-)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

J. Tattersall wrote:
tomuk wrote:B2s aren't really credible
What role or mission aren't they credible for?
Any except showing the flag? :think:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Following that logic requires two T31's to be forward based in Singapore plus a third in Gibraltar leaving only two left to conduct FRE and pretty much all of the UK's NATO obligations. I would suggest that isn't a credible plan.

Also with one RB2 permanently forward based in the Falklands and three assigned to Fisheries Protection it only leaves a single RB2 to deploy on APT(N). This leaves the OPV fleet massively stretched at a time when the UK will be renegotiating its fishing quotas with the EU. Again this scenario doesn't really look credible either.

I think it is now highly likely the RB1's will be replaced with another batch of OPV's at the appropriate time.
we have gone from 4 OPV's to 8 some part of this is down to the type 23 life ex we will be getting the type 31's and if the B1's are not replaced that will leave us with 5 B2's and 5 T-31's. as for there deployments I would see the 5 B2's like so 1 as FIGS , 1 in Gib and 3 at home when it comes to the T-31's I see them 1 in the Gulf , 1 in the Indo-Pacific , 1 on AP-N and 2 at home . As for NATO obligations we now have the Carrier groups and the LRG the days of sending the odd escort on SNMG-1 or 2 is gone. Also it is only right that we have escorts from allies with the CSG's the more flags the better it shows commitment to stand together

I would also suggest that the biggest hole in the fleet right now is only having one SSS in Fort Vic it means we can only deploy one carrier group at a time for the next decade and by the time this is sorted we should if all goes well have T-32 as well

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

abc123 wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote:
tomuk wrote:B2s aren't really credible
What role or mission aren't they credible for?
Any except showing the flag? :think:
Ok, I’ll take the bait.

The B2 River’s operational envelope is to cover sub conflict patrol and presence roles. This covers patrolling U.K./BOT and allied EEZs, broader regional maritime security (terrorism, illegal fishing, pollution, drug smuggling etc), training of allied navies and to a limited extent surveillance operations. With their speed, range and ability to be easily forward based they are the optimal design for these roles - forget an expensive frigate or slow civilian ship.

The real question is, with the threats in this envelope evolving (especially with increased backing from state sponsors) how do the Rivers need to evolve to keep relevant. And given the increased demand given the rise of superpower / regional tensions and climate change, does the UK have enough hulls to match its ambition - and what is that ambition.
”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." - Lord Palmerston

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:I would also suggest that the biggest hole in the fleet right now is only having one SSS in Fort Vic it means we can only deploy one carrier group at a time for the next decade and by the time this is sorted we should if all goes well have T-32 as well
I would say that getting the three SSSs in the water is a priority but not the only one.

The UK has now kicked of a policy (rightly in my view) of deliberately poking the Bear and Dragon. It is required to keep in check their expansionist aspirations typically through sub major conflict means.

We should not expect this to go unanswered, and should equally expect to be challenged closer to home and also globally.

For the Navy increased ASW assets in the North Atlantic and Artic is a must.

Increased land (radar installations), air (manned and drone), sea (OPV, MROS) surveillance assets for sea/air/BMD defence both for the UK and key global installations backed by credible strike / counter measure options is also a must IMO.
”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." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:The real question is, with the threats in this envelope evolving (especially with increased backing from state sponsors) how do the Rivers need to evolve to keep relevant. And given the increased demand given the rise of superpower / regional tensions and climate change, does the UK have enough hulls to match its ambition - and what is that ambition.
As I said with the 2 B2's heading out to the Indo-Pacific the most common PLAN ships they are likely to come across are the Type 056 corvette and Type 054a frigate if we take the 056 as the nearest in size and task it has a 76mm , 2 x 30mm 8 x SR SAM's and 4 SSGW so what could be done to give the Rivers a bit more punch well as said a hundred time fit a 57mm and 2 x 30mm with 5 LMM and they would not be that far off a Type 056

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414, I’ve made my views on adding more of a defensive punch to the B2s on a number of occasions (at least those operating EoS). However, it all needs to be seen through the lens of the broader ambition and strategy.

If the UK wants to be globally engaged, supporting the low level rule of law and protecting UK and allied interests, backed by the ambition to deliver a limited tier 1 punch globally in partnership with allies, then the fleet should reflect this.

Part of this is the size of the escort force, the ambition in the IR was 24 (though experienced heads are stating a force of 30 is really required).

Putting aside MCM/mothership role which seems to be a requirement (to a greater or lesser extent) for all platforms, then probably one of the key requirements is to make sure that every frigate is a credible escort first and foremost.

This means that we need to maximise the number of T26s and maximise the war fighting capabilities of the T31 and T32. As such, you can see the blank sheet of paper approach for the T32 being dangerous. Best thing is to just crack on, add ASuW and ASW capabilities to the T31 and build 10.

That would mean though that the role being played by the Rivers continue, and a B3 River (to free the B2s to replace the B1s) comes into play and makes a lot of sense. However, these will not be frigates, but more an evolution to meet the low-level operational requirements I described above.
”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." - Lord Palmerston

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Repulse wrote:
abc123 wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote:
tomuk wrote:B2s aren't really credible
What role or mission aren't they credible for?
Any except showing the flag? :think:
Ok, I’ll take the bait.

The B2 River’s operational envelope is to cover sub conflict patrol and presence roles. This covers patrolling U.K./BOT and allied EEZs, broader regional maritime security (terrorism, illegal fishing, pollution, drug smuggling etc), training of allied navies and to a limited extent surveillance operations. With their speed, range and ability to be easily forward based they are the optimal design for these roles - forget an expensive frigate or slow civilian ship.

The real question is, with the threats in this envelope evolving (especially with increased backing from state sponsors) how do the Rivers need to evolve to keep relevant. And given the increased demand given the rise of superpower / regional tensions and climate change, does the UK have enough hulls to match its ambition - and what is that ambition.
Yeah, with two fearsome Rivers there, China and Iran and Russia can just self-sink their whole fleets. They have no hope whatsoever now.

Come on people, be serious, keep Rivers for fisheries patrol around UK, West Indies patrol and Falklands patrol (until the Argies get something more serious than that French OPV) and other such policing dutues- and put real warships where real conflict is possible.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote:As I said with the 2 B2's heading out to the Indo-Pacific the most common PLAN ships they are likely to come across are the Type 056 corvette and Type 054a frigate if we take the 056 as the nearest in size and task it has a 76mm , 2 x 30mm 8 x SR SAM's and 4 SSGW so what could be done to give the Rivers a bit more punch well as said a hundred time fit a 57mm and 2 x 30mm with 5 LMM and they would not be that far off a Type 056
As Corvettes nor frigates cannot be at sea as long as River does, in peace time, they need at least two corvettes/frigates to counter one River B2. Big win, already.

But, I guess China will send their coast guard ships against River B2.

OPV and Survey ships went into Black sea, not only T45. It will be the same in south China sea.

OPV has their own task. Frigate has another task, not the same.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

abc123 wrote:Yeah, with two fearsome Rivers there, China and Iran and Russia can just self-sink their whole fleets. They have no hope whatsoever now.
If you think the role of the B2 Rivers are to hold back the might of Chinese naval power, then you are right, but also you have read what I stated to be their role.

Chinese expansionist aspirations are complex and multi tiered. Currently, it is focused on low level intimidation and projection (like the globally roaming fishing fleets), coupled with occasional shows of force. The B2s are there to partly counter this.

China will only use its real naval power when it is confident of winning without escalation (due to its dominance). That is a way off and requires an allied (NATO style) response - the UK naval contribution to this is a globally deployable tier 1 CSG.
”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." - Lord Palmerston

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:it is only right that we have escorts from allies with the CSG's the more flags the better it shows commitment to stand together
I agree cooperation with allies is vital but we all know that when the fighting starts most of these Allies will rapidly disappear with a few obvious exceptions.

There is a big difference between adding allied escorts to the CSG and relying on Allies to escort the CSG. Asking the USN to provide an ABM capability for the foreseeable future is a big ask.

The lack of escorts and over reliance on allies is made worse by the fact the UK has the perfect opportunity to solve the conundrum by making the T31's a useful addition to the CSG. Unfortunately HMG simply chooses not to for cost reasons alone.

The immediate RN escort crisis can now be solved for £200m to £300m. IMO if this opportunity is missed it will be a massive mistake for both HMG and RN.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:There is a big difference between adding allied escorts to the CSG and relying on Allies to escort the CSG. Asking the USN to provide an ABM capability for the foreseeable future is a big ask.
The USN will back the UK CSG with say 10 jets and a AB as it is a big return for little outlay
Poiuytrewq wrote:The immediate RN escort crisis can now be solved for £200m to £300m. IMO if this opportunity is missed it will be a massive mistake for both HMG and RN.
I can not agree more

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: The immediate RN escort crisis can now be solved for £200m to £300m. IMO if this opportunity is missed it will be a massive mistake for both HMG and RN.
Get the £200m to £300m by sacrificing what? Decrease one or two F35Bs? Cancel I-SSGW? In addition, to operate the added weapons, you need more crew, more operating cost, and increased support cost (costed independent from operating cost). Get that by sacrificing what?

I agree up arming T31 "a little" is very attractive idea. But, I cannot agree adding more money on the T31 project, which already ate 60% more resource (+£750M) compared to the originally planned program cost (£1.25B) (= official number from NAO report). Because T31 became attractive as HMG had already added £750M (which means killing the "9th T26"), yet another £200-300m shall be added?

Personally, I think, the best way is to cancel the 5th hull of T31, to "self-feed" the resources needed. (But, the contract will not allow it.) Second idea is to "stop adding Sea Ceptor system to 2 hulls, to make the remaining 3 hulls all armed with 24 CAMM, hull-sonar, and stingray". Procurement cost-flat, crew-flat, operation/support-cost flat, just capability biased.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo, valid points but I can only see that by ensuring all the T31/T32 are real war fighting frigates can the RN have a credible fighting force overall. I’d say that programmes like I-SSGW will be equipping the T31 anyway.

Where can money be saved from - my view is that with adapting all the Bays to have hangars, the amphibious fleet is more than capable of soldiering on till the late 2030s. Forget all dreams of a MRSS - the frigate and OPV force will be capable of supporting smaller RM ops anyway.
”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." - Lord Palmerston

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Get the £200m to £300m by sacrificing what?
Good question.

The money required amounts to around £40m to £50m per annum between 2023 and 2028. That is hardly a deal breaker but it's still a significant amount.

Whilst I would ideally like the Treasury to shake the magic money tree again realistically the most reasonable way to bridge the gap in finance and manpower is to start to retire some of the T23's early.

Not ideal but this really is the time to sort the chronic escort shortage. It can be done and it should be done.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Get the £200m to £300m by sacrificing what?
Good question.

The money required amounts to around £40m to £50m per annum between 2023 and 2028. That is hardly a deal breaker but it's still a significant amount.

Whilst I would ideally like the Treasury to shake the magic money tree again realistically the most reasonable way to bridge the gap in finance and manpower is to start to retire some of the T23's early.

Not ideal but this really is the time to sort the chronic escort shortage. It can be done and it should be done.
Well maybe Babcock can pull of the deal with Greece including a couple of T23, reduces immediate RN expenditure and possible economies of scale on design build T31.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:As Corvettes nor frigates cannot be at sea as long as River does, in peace time, they need at least two corvettes/frigates to counter one River B2. Big win, already.

But, I guess China will send their coast guard ships against River B2.

OPV and Survey ships went into Black sea, not only T45. It will be the same in south China sea.

OPV has their own task. Frigate has another task, not the same.
the South Seas fleet alone has 29 frigates and corvettes and it only needs one of them to be overly aggressive and damage one of the 2 OPV's and it is out of the game

As said the SSF has 29 corvettes and frigates and 42 escorts in total and then there is the coast guard who have 54 ships of the same size or bigger than B2 and another 43 between 1,300 & 1,800 tons = 97 ships above 1,300 tons and we have seen they are not backward in coming forward

The Black Sea is a hole different ball game to the Indo-Pacific and you know it

I totally agree OPV's have there own tasks but this dose not mean they can't and should not be armed with risk in mind. And a 57mm is going to make a big change in capability with no impact on crew numbers in fact if the B2's were fitted with a 57mm , 2 x 20mm and 2 x miniguns it would have no impact on crew numbers but would make anyone thinking of getting to close think again

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:the South Seas fleet alone has 29 frigates and corvettes and it only needs one of them to be overly aggressive and damage one of the 2 OPV's and it is out of the game
The same though can be said of a Frigate - an “accidental” ram from a coastguard ship could do the same. Having said that, I see the primary role of these ships being presence (call it flag waving), training of allied navies, marine protection and making low level political statements by navigating the South China Sea.

What we mustn’t lose sight of though is the broader context - that is the expanding ambition of China to be the global superpower. It already has a network of financially dependent countries in Asia, Africa and South America. Using these to exert the power of Beijing will only increase.

Also, as reported by Sol over at SNAFU, US Congressman Gallagher (Former Marine) has predicted that a conflict with China in less than six years. He says the US is and will not be ready.

Is the ratcheting up of pressure a way of buying time? What will the role of the RN be in any conflict? I can see the CSG being deployed, but will it be used? I can’t see any Singleton deployments making the slightest dent. If only there were more SSNs.

Either way, the time is coming fast for a conflict that will define at least the first part of this century. If by deploying a few OPVs as part of a united global effort to buy another year or two, then it makes sense - but it has to be in parallel with something else, or we need to keep well clear (which isn’t in our interests or blood).
”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." - Lord Palmerston

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Did the integrated review not make a specific difference between how we view Russia and China?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:Is the ratcheting up of pressure a way of buying time? What will the role of the RN be in any conflict? I can see the CSG being deployed, but will it be used? I can’t see any Singleton deployments making the slightest dent. If only there were more SSNs.
The RN Carrier strike group would be good but only as the centre of a commonwealth battle group made up of

1 x QE carrier
1 x SSN
1 x Canberra class LHD
4 x SSK ( 2 x RAN & 2 x RCN )
2 x Bay class
2 x Type 45's
1 x Hobart class
3 x type 23
4 x ANZAC class ( 3 x RAN & 1 RNZN )
3 x Halifax class
Plus Tanker and solid support ships

for me this is the what we should be pushing for this force could make up task force South with the USN along with Japan and South Korea making up the Centre and North

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote:Did the integrated review not make a specific difference between how we view Russia and China?
Sort of - my reading is that “Russia is an immediate threat” and “China is quickly becoming one”. How quickly is the question - some think 10 years others now think 6 or less.
1.4. Russia continues to pose the greatest nuclear, conventional military and sub-threshold threat to European security. Modernisation of the Russian armed forces, the ability to integrate whole of state activity and a greater appetite for risk, makes Russia both a capable and unpredictable actor.

1.5. The rising power of China is by far the most significant geopolitical factor in the world today. China poses a complex, systemic challenge. As the Integrated Review makes clear, we need to be prepared to push back to protect our values and global interests, while maintaining our ability to cooperate in tackling global challenges such as climate change and the mutual benefits of our economic relationship.

The significant impact of China’s military modernisation (which is proceeding faster than any other nation) and growing international assertiveness within the Indo-Pacific region will pose an increasing challenge.
….

2.3. Growing maritime capabilities will enable the projection of power further afield and to conduct operations from increased range.

• The growth of China’s navy, already the largest in the world, is outpacing all competitors. China is set to have as many as five aircraft carriers by 2030 as well as up to four light helicopter carriers, and are supported by the growing fleet of destroyers.

• Russia is investing in and developing significant underwater capabilities, including deep-sea capabilities which can threaten undersea cables, as well as a torpedo capable of delivering a nuclear payload to coastal targets.

2.4. The development of long-range precision strike capabilities, combined with increasingly capable early warning radar and integrated air defence systems, will enable states to contest and even dominate airspace in many areas where the UK will need to operate.

• China is developing a full spectrum of air capabilities including fourth and fifth generation fighters, multiple Intelligence Surveillance Targeting Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) aircraft, the Y-20 heavy transport aircraft, armed stealth Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and a capable Integrated Air Defence System with the world’s most modern surface to air missiles.

• Russia has the capability to conduct precision strikes at range and to deny freedom of action to the UK and our allies through a highly capable integrated air defence system. Russia can therefore present a significant threat to the UK’s ability to support our forces and protect our interests in Europe, the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.

My view is that for the UK, Russia will be a constant annoyance and will use opportunities in global events to maximise its influence and control of neighbouring states. China however is the bigger threat to the UK and it’s way of life.
”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." - Lord Palmerston

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by abc123 »

Repulse wrote:
SW1 wrote:Did the integrated review not make a specific difference between how we view Russia and China?
Sort of - my reading is that “Russia is an immediate threat” and “China is quickly becoming one”. How quickly is the question - some think 10 years others now think 6 or less.
1.4. Russia continues to pose the greatest nuclear, conventional military and sub-threshold threat to European security. Modernisation of the Russian armed forces, the ability to integrate whole of state activity and a greater appetite for risk, makes Russia both a capable and unpredictable actor.

1.5. The rising power of China is by far the most significant geopolitical factor in the world today. China poses a complex, systemic challenge. As the Integrated Review makes clear, we need to be prepared to push back to protect our values and global interests, while maintaining our ability to cooperate in tackling global challenges such as climate change and the mutual benefits of our economic relationship.

The significant impact of China’s military modernisation (which is proceeding faster than any other nation) and growing international assertiveness within the Indo-Pacific region will pose an increasing challenge.
….

2.3. Growing maritime capabilities will enable the projection of power further afield and to conduct operations from increased range.

• The growth of China’s navy, already the largest in the world, is outpacing all competitors. China is set to have as many as five aircraft carriers by 2030 as well as up to four light helicopter carriers, and are supported by the growing fleet of destroyers.

• Russia is investing in and developing significant underwater capabilities, including deep-sea capabilities which can threaten undersea cables, as well as a torpedo capable of delivering a nuclear payload to coastal targets.

2.4. The development of long-range precision strike capabilities, combined with increasingly capable early warning radar and integrated air defence systems, will enable states to contest and even dominate airspace in many areas where the UK will need to operate.

• China is developing a full spectrum of air capabilities including fourth and fifth generation fighters, multiple Intelligence Surveillance Targeting Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) aircraft, the Y-20 heavy transport aircraft, armed stealth Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and a capable Integrated Air Defence System with the world’s most modern surface to air missiles.

• Russia has the capability to conduct precision strikes at range and to deny freedom of action to the UK and our allies through a highly capable integrated air defence system. Russia can therefore present a significant threat to the UK’s ability to support our forces and protect our interests in Europe, the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.

My view is that for the UK, Russia will be a constant annoyance and will use opportunities in global events to maximise its influence and control of neighbouring states. China however is the bigger threat to the UK and it’s way of life.
What, you shall all have to use sticks and eat rice instead of fish and chips? :o
Horror
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Repulse »

abc123 wrote:What, you shall all have to use sticks and eat rice instead of fish and chips?
No problem with the food, it’s the lack of democracy, human rights and slavery through debt / access to raw materials / goods that I have a problem with.
”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." - Lord Palmerston

Post Reply