General UK Defence Discussion

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6414
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 44 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I agree mostly, and should we, due to the lack of historical context demand compensation form Italy for the Roman Invasion and the Netherlands and Germany for that of the Saxons? How many were taken as slaves for what is now the UK by the Romans? Look how the Angle/Saxon Nobility were treated by the Normans. How far back does one go?

However whilst I am proud that the UK is trying to be a global power once again, the ways and means for us to do so are sadly lacking for us to do so in a meaningful way. This and the desire to remain at the cutting edge of defence and incorporate new capabilities such as cyber as going to mean that our conventional capabilities are going to be steadily reduced, nothing new there but the rate of reduction is likely to increase over the next ten or more years.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 819
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 24 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Defiance »

Gtal wrote: 25 Dec 2021, 07:44
Repulse wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 09:33
Defiance wrote: 10 Dec 2021, 08:41 [...]global trend to be "anti-UK"[...]
Boggles the mind.
The whole world has conspired to pick on the poor UK right?


You know.. At some point you need to consider the possibility that the UK is the problem.

I mean, come on! Now it's "fog in the channel AND in the atlantic"? Really???
Learn to quote properly gtal, I never said that.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2361
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by bobp »

Seems like the Labour party are having a dig at MOD waste....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59876757

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6414
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 44 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I wonder if the Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey is related to Dennis Healey. If so it is unfortunate considering what the former, as the Labour Government's Defence Secretary, did to defence spending in the late 1960s and early 1970s, scrapping TSR-2 for starters.

The MoD must, in future, get far more robust and accurate quotes for procurement programmes, if necessary stating to bidders that the price they quote will be the one they are held to with no extra money. In addition the Department for Trade and Industry, if it is still called that, should be involved in the Assessment and Development phase of any programme that may involve the design and manufacture of equipment in the UK, with them partially funding said project with the aim of creating and/or supporting British skills and jobs. This is only levelling the playing field with oversea contractors who are already supported either directly or indirectly by their Governments. This will also mean that though UK companies will be able to bid more competitively for MoD contracts, they will not be guaranteed to win them. They still must provide a robust bid to which they will be held.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1157
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 17:33 They still must provide a robust bid to which they will be held.
Will the MoD also be held to their side?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6414
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 44 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I would say "Yes", but we are talking Politicians here and regardless of colour their priorities change far more often then threats and the MoD is bound to follow where its Masters decide to go.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »


Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6414
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 44 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

A very nice, glossy publication full of a lot of what has already been announced and what the RAF aspire to be twenty or so years from now. I do find the introduction of Space Command "Wings" a little bit too much, do the Army Operators of the Watchkeeper UAV get full pilots wings now as well?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim wrote: 12 Jan 2022, 08:01 A very nice, glossy publication full of a lot of what has already been announced and what the RAF aspire to be twenty or so years from now. I do find the introduction of Space Command "Wings" a little bit too much, do the Army Operators of the Watchkeeper UAV get full pilots wings now as well?
Only if they learn to fly them rather than crash them. :lol:

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7231
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 9 times
England

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SKB »


TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 1 time
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Anyway this can be downloaded as a PDF?

( Ignore - found how to do it..)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Repulse

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2819
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 35 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I suspect the aftermath of this is going to get quite shocking in the days ahead. Wonder what if any a response from the UK will be for a commonwealth nation in the pacific

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-60009944

As the sky darkened with ash, videos showed traffic jams as people fled low-lying areas by car. Hours later, Tonga's internet and phone lines went down, making the island's 105,000 residents almost entirely unreachable.

Prior to the largest eruption, the volcano had been erupting for several days. The Tonga Meteorological Agency had warned that the smell of sulphur and ammonia was being reported in some areas.

Satellite images suggest some outlying islands have been completely submerged by seawater.

Experts say the eruption of the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha'apai volcano is one of the most violent in the region in decades.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 23 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Not sure where to post this, and not sure what difference the RN can really make beyond political optics. Giving things to the military seems to be a trend at the moment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60021252
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6414
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 44 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Someone in the Treasury has obvious decided that if you have got it use it. They do not like things they have paid for sitting around not being used.

I just wish they could be ordered to return anyone recovered in the Channel to the place they put to sea so they can begin to claim Asylum there, where it is just as safe. Once they are settled they can easily and legally come over an visit any relatives they may have in the UK.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 23 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The only good thing is that the RN will be able to use it when fighting its budget corner, especially for kit such as OPVs, fast boats and Scan Eagle type UAVs.
”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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6414
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 44 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I wouldn't be surprised if a B3 River appears in the next Review, to both replace the B1 Rivers and increase the overall number of OPV available. They are just proving too useful for this not to happen and it could produce more export orders given their high profile.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 349
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by tomuk »

FFS No! B3 Rivers are a figment of too many peoples imaginations. If Border force need more cutters there a lots of designs eg Damen available off the shelf. What the RN need is a multi purpose vessel mothership vessel to replace some of the minesweepers and the echos.

Border control isn't the RNs job. The Home Office need to sort themselves out. Note I would in favour of a paramilitary HM Coastguard for home waters patrol, rescue, border, customs etc duties.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6414
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 44 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Given how useful the B2s are, I can easily see the MoD wanting to replace them with new OPVs increasing the number available for both their traditional and new roles. A B3 would take on board any lessons learnt from the deployments of the B2. Acting to stop immigrants is not a prime role for the RN even if this Government wants it to be.

As for motherships for the unmanned MCM platforms, well that is likely to be something akin to the Bays with facilities designed for the job supplemented by shore based control stations.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 349
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by tomuk »

The B2s are virtually brand new its years before their replacement is due and arguably you don't need as capable a ship to replace the B1s in home waters.

As for minehunters apart from the Gulf where multiple co located MCMs would require a larger mothership to replace the equivalent of a shore facility a much smaller vessel like the new Dutch/Belgian vessels i.e. 2800t is required for deployments.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2009
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 3 times
Australia

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by R686 »

tomuk wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 00:17 FFS No! B3 Rivers are a figment of too many peoples imaginations. If Border force need more cutters there a lots of designs eg Damen available off the shelf. What the RN need is a multi purpose vessel mothership vessel to replace some of the minesweepers and the echos.

Border control isn't the RNs job. The Home Office need to sort themselves out. Note I would in favour of a paramilitary HM Coastguard for home waters patrol, rescue, border, customs etc duties.

The ADF has a duel role working with border force hence the new Arafura-class offshore patrol vessel with primarily roles being border patrol, mine warfare, and hydrographic survey.

Not sure why the RN can’t do it as well

tomuk
Member
Posts: 349
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by tomuk »

R686 wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 02:36

Not sure why the RN can’t do it as well
It is a waste of their resources. You don't need 2000t 5000nm rage OPVs to patrol a box 25x10 miles off the coast of Dover.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2009
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 3 times
Australia

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by R686 »

tomuk wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 02:56
R686 wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 02:36

Not sure why the RN can’t do it as well
It is a waste of their resources. You don't need 2000t 5000nm rage OPVs to patrol a box 25x10 miles off the coast of Dover.

Agree if it was the only section of UK EEZ but it’s not, if I’m not mistaken the EEZ for the mainland Territory of UK&NI is approximately 773,676km2

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2358
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

To rewarm an earlier post of mine, I think it might be a good idea to consider the RB1 and P2000 replacements at the same time. Either creating a single class of smaller Inshore Patrol Boat for use in all the roles that they currently fill, or perhaps, moving the URNU function to a derivative of the SEA-class boats (they would still have utility in territorial waters patrol out to 11 NM), retaining commonality with an existing class in service, followed by the build of (say) five 50-60m ships for the remaining "naval" functions for EEZ (200nm) patrol. The RB3 concept (which has some merit, particularly if helicopter facilities are included) would then become a replacement for the existing RB2s at some point in the (quite distant) future
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post (total 2):
Lord Jimjedibeeftrix
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 67 times
Been liked: 3 times
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

R686 wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 07:45
tomuk wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 02:56
R686 wrote: 20 Jan 2022, 02:36

Not sure why the RN can’t do it as well
It is a waste of their resources. You don't need 2000t 5000nm rage OPVs to patrol a box 25x10 miles off the coast of Dover.

Agree if it was the only section of UK EEZ but it’s not, if I’m not mistaken the EEZ for the mainland Territory of UK&NI is approximately 773,676km2
The River B1's are perfect for patrolling the UK EEZ, and I hope they are kept around for as long as possible whilst they are still cost effective to do so.

The River B2 batch 1's have helicopter facilities but no hangars. They have proved useful for protecting the EEZ of British Overseas Territories - they have effectively taken over from the previous frigates allocated to be Falklands / Carribbean / Gibralter Guard Ship. Again they are doing great as they are and relieving the limited number of UK escorts to focus on more frontline tasks. They are fine as they are.

The River B2 batch 2's (HMS Spey / Tamar) are the two that have been recently advanced deployed to the Indo Pacific. They are doing a great peacetime role of giving the RN regular forward presence in the area and despite my misgivings are working with and building relationships with regional allies in the Indo-Pacific until they can be replaced by the first T31's.

As hostilities and tension grow with both India and China, I am nervous about Spey and Tamar being sitting ducks if things escalate. I do think they could do with say a telescopic hangar (initially for Wildcats but over time more for UAV's so that they can be stored and worked on under cover), plus some slight upgunning in firepower in the 40mm-30mm range, together with Martlett or maybe SeaRAM for anti-horde / drone protection. That mini-upgrade to OPV Plus would probably have to wait until the T31's are in service to replace them EoS.

Post Reply