General UK Defence Discussion

[Jdam]

Where do you even start with a budget increase? more Ships, more Aircraft, more Tanks, more Equipment? you could make an argument for all. We have cut everything back so much its a bit difficult to know where to start.

Part of me thinks a major focus should be on building up escorts for the navy with nothing short of doubling our Type 26 commitment. This gives us more hull to counter Russia in the Atlantic, deploy forces to the Gulf/Pacific and free up Type 45's for carrier escorts. Speaking of the Type 45's maybe look to keep them when the Type 83 comes along, not like they are going to have that many miles on them when the 83s are built and we are going to spend a good bit of cash on them over the next few years. Question is, can we recruit the personal required between now and then to operate both?

I guess an easy answer is to reverse the cuts we made in 2019.

[Tempest414]

For me the Army needs to get to

200 x Challenger 3 , 500 Ajax , 800 Boxer , 400 Viking , 400 Foxhound , 800 Bushmaster , 200 SP 155mm , 100 MAN/MLRS , they need Boxer , Viking & Bushmaster to come in

APC , C&C , SP Mortar , Brimstone Over watch , Assault Pioneer , Ambulance

Navy needs to get

3 x SSS , 6 x MRSS , 10 x T-26 , 6 x T- 31 , 6 x T-32 , 10 x MHPC

they need to form a Atlantic Fleet and a EoS fleet with the EoS fleet having 2 x MRSS , 3 x T-31 , 3 x T-32 and 4 MHPC

The RAF need

6 x E-7 , 16 x P-8 , 130 x Typhoon , 90 x F-35 , 24 x A400 , 12 x C-130 , 4 x new RAF Regt air defence sqn's with CAMM

[Phil Sayers]

Where do you even start with a budget increase? more Ships, more Aircraft, more Tanks, more Equipment? you could make an argument for all. We have cut everything back so much its a bit difficult to know where to start.

I think the most urgent and important thing is to drastically increase our stockpiles of things like fuel, medicine, artillery shells and missiles of all types. It is very evident to me that if we were presently forced to fight a high-intensity conventional war we would be running out of these within a week and that is a very dangerous, potentially catastrophic, position to be in.

That is not to say that we don't also need more equipment (and indeed personnel) - we do as well but I think the 'expendables' must be the very urgent priority.

[SW1]

[Lord Jim]

Not really impressed. WE need announcements for additional funding and a revised and speeded up Equipment plan, increased logistics as well as personnel. A few "Band Aids", won't fix anything . First and Foremost there needs t be a fully independent "Threat Assessment" carried out as well as an independent review i=of whet the Armed Forces need to effectively counter those threats identified. They can even give the undertaking a catchy name like "Belt and Braces",.

[Tempest414]

One of the carrier groups LOL if we and NATO want to get serious when it comes to the second carrier then we should be pushing all NATO F-35 operators to buy 3 to 5 F-35B for a NATO carrier airwing . On top of this NATO should put forward a Escort group for it as well. For our part we would put forward the carrier plus a SSS , tanker and SSN

To put this into context

Belgium , Denmark , Finland , Germany , Italy , Holland , Norway , Poland , UK & US will all operate F-35 if they all buy 3 extra F-35b for the NATO carrier wing this would be 30 jets if they buy 5 it would be 50 jets

[Jdam]

2.5% of GDP on Defence by 2030 apparently

[Tempest414]

god this government wait for the Sue Gray report no wait for the Police report now wait for defence spending to be where it should be as bear minimum and while we are at it chap lets give our self a big pat on the back and let every body know we met the minimum 2% for the last 12 year

2.5 by 2030 is just kicking the can down the road again

[SW1]

It’s more than an election away, more than the current PM away so I put it in the believe it when I see it category…

[inch]

Basically promised squat all , zilch nafin guvnor,lots ov hot air ,good job theres nothing going on in the world ATM ,all fine and dandy

[Scimitar54]

It should be from NOW! It should also be 3% or even more.

[Jdam]

The problem is even with the number itself, its not capability based so they can just add something to the MOD budget that usually comes out of another departments budget then low and behold 2.5% of GDP.

It would be different if they said we are going to spend 2.5% due to doubling the number of escorts in the navy but this is nothing.

[SW1]

The problem is even with the number itself, its not capability based so they can just add something to the MOD budget that usually comes out of another departments budget then low and behold 2.5% of GDP.

It would be different if they said we are going to spend 2.5% due to doubling the number of escorts in the navy but this is nothing.

I think the thing will be I doubt even spending that much will see very much if any increase in numbers of equipment. stocks of weapons, and spares to enable higher readiness and more training would probably eat it all up not to mention improvements to infrastructure and resilience across the defence estate.

[topman]

The problem is even with the number itself, its not capability based so they can just add something to the MOD budget that usually comes out of another departments budget then low and behold 2.5% of GDP.

It would be different if they said we are going to spend 2.5% due to doubling the number of escorts in the navy but this is nothing.

I think the thing will be I doubt even spending that much will see very much if any increase in numbers of equipment. stocks of weapons, and spares to enable higher readiness and more training would probably eat it all up not to mention improvements to infrastructure and resilience across the defence estate.

Very much so, then add in recruitment and retention. I think all 3 services are 6% (ish) undermanned. Then there's cost overruns that will easily eat all that extra cash up.

It's what 5-6bn by 2030, we won't see much change in force structure.

Or perhaps we'll buy more sqns that can do little else than remain current, or army units that largely exist on paper with no ability to deploy.

[SW1]

Friend partner, allies, bully?

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ed-advent/

The government similarly scrutinized the purchase of Cobham, a U.K. defense and aerospace company acquired by Advent in 2020, weighing risks to national security.

Media reports said U.S. officials threatened to limit intelligence cooperation if the sale was blocked by the British.

[Little J]

Let's find out... Anyone got a few billion down the back of the sofa, we need to put a bid in for Lockheed Martin to see what their reaction will be

[Gtal]

Friend partner, allies, bully?

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... ed-advent/

The government similarly scrutinized the purchase of Cobham, a U.K. defense and aerospace company acquired by Advent in 2020, weighing risks to national security.

Media reports said U.S. officials threatened to limit intelligence cooperation if the sale was blocked by the British.

Honestly though.. It's not like this stuff would have been going anywhere else without the US being able to intervene, why don't they leave it be in UK hands, UK gov and defence industry have shown impeccable and unwaivering loyalty to US defence even when we were in the EU and France and Germany were making pretty eyes at us and trying to entice UK industry into integrating with them and their dream of a EU "domestic" defence market..

Now watch the private equity brigade waste Cobhams niche but truly woldclass abilities away in their hunt to maximise next quarterly return...

Industries stranglehold on Congress combined with ever more extreme protectionism has visibly damaged US ability to produce high quality equipment at this point.
Boeing's failure in both civil and military programs of recent years is nothing short of alarming.

Why doesn't the US do the smart thing and genuinely make the UK, AUS and CAN part of it's defence industrial base, shake things up, increase scale and create some harmless and controlled competition.

It would likely do wonders for the US base and throw a meaty bone to it's most loyal allies.

[Gtal]

Sorry for double post, but I have to ask!

What contribution might the PoW realistically make in the baltic or black sea against land power Russia, whose only genuine worldbeating capability seems to be missiles of all forms and sizes and are probably still pissed about the Moskva...?


Or am I missing something?

[Tempest414]

well at this time what she is is a big floating airfield which the UK , US and Italian can rushed F-35B to in support of operation's

[wargame_insomniac]

Sorry for double post, but I have to ask!

What contribution might the PoW realistically make in the baltic or black sea against land power Russia, whose only genuine worldbeating capability seems to be missiles of all forms and sizes and are probably still pissed about the Moskva...?


Or am I missing something?

Slightly tongue-in-chek but based on recent deployments, PoW offers a floating helicopter base with minimal defence systems (as I fear Phalanx CIWS will be almost useless against hypersonic missiles).

Now if Russia is polite enough to wait until maybe 2030, then we might actually have enough UK F35B's to put 1-2 squadrons on both carriers, and hopefully surge up to 3 squadrons on 1 carrier if required.....

[jonas]

Future RN flying training intakes at BRNC :-

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... se.pdf.htm

[mr.fred]

Sorry for double post, but I have to ask!

What contribution might the PoW realistically make in the baltic or black sea against land power Russia, whose only genuine worldbeating capability seems to be missiles of all forms and sizes and are probably still pissed about the Moskva...?


Or am I missing something?

Slightly tongue-in-chek but based on recent deployments, PoW offers a floating helicopter base with minimal defence systems (as I fear Phalanx CIWS will be almost useless against hypersonic missiles).

Now if Russia is polite enough to wait until maybe 2030, then we might actually have enough UK F35B's to put 1-2 squadrons on both carriers, and hopefully surge up to 3 squadrons on 1 carrier if required.....

Why are we writing as if a carrier would be deployed without escorts? I’d expect at least one of each, Destroyer and Frigate, providing protection.

[Tempest414]

If POW is to act as a NATO carrier then we should provide the Carrier it self plus 1 T-45 , 1 T-23 and a Tanker the US should Provide 1 DDC and 10 F-35B and then other NATO members should Provide escorts and Helicopters

I would still Like to see a NATO carrier air wing made up of 25 F-35B & 20 Helicopters this could go to sea on any of the Carriers or LHD's capable of operating them

[ArmChairCivvy]

I guess no one was specific about the carrier being in the Baltic... v unlikely.

NATO is tending more and more towards matching the Ruskie thinking: an AO that is everything between Kaliningrad and Tromso-Svalbard-Murmansk ... and the assets to (over)match the 'oppo' should be assessed/ allocated on that basis
... which brings me to the 'new superpower' in stealth fighters: the JEF
UK, Norway and Finland, all of them with over a half hundred
NL, Denmark both with a few more
throw in Poland (not participating, but through the NATO connection and being in that AO 'roughly')

And what do you get? USMC Bde (with the pre-positioned kit in Norway) might also not arrive w/o a few F-35s 'in tow' .

[wargame_insomniac]

Sorry for double post, but I have to ask!

What contribution might the PoW realistically make in the baltic or black sea against land power Russia, whose only genuine worldbeating capability seems to be missiles of all forms and sizes and are probably still pissed about the Moskva...?


Or am I missing something?

Slightly tongue-in-chek but based on recent deployments, PoW offers a floating helicopter base with minimal defence systems (as I fear Phalanx CIWS will be almost useless against hypersonic missiles).

Now if Russia is polite enough to wait until maybe 2030, then we might actually have enough UK F35B's to put 1-2 squadrons on both carriers, and hopefully surge up to 3 squadrons on 1 carrier if required.....

Why are we writing as if a carrier would be deployed without escorts? I’d expect at least one of each, Destroyer and Frigate, providing protection.

Looking at both US and UK CSG, more looking at minimum of 4 escorts, most probably 5 or 6, even if included allies in that.