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: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I still think the MoD has its head inthe sand. The Integrated Review provided a fairly good framework, but the y need additional resources to make it work as they wish it to. TO believe otherwise is wishful thinking as our Military, especially the Army has more holes in capability that the Swiss Cheese industry.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim wrote: 02 Apr 2022, 06:25 I still think the MoD has its head inthe sand. The Integrated Review provided a fairly good framework, but the y need additional resources to make it work as they wish it to. TO believe otherwise is wishful thinking as our Military, especially the Army has more holes in capability that the Swiss Cheese industry.
Probably quite hard to justify additional defence funding the budget as a whole is large and funding pulls on energy/Food cost security and health are probably bigger priorities.

Much more needs spent on readiness and training but I suspect will need to come from within its budget. There is a lot of talk that Ukraine shows how all arms combined warfare is a must at all levels and the requirement to disburse on the battlefield. If that is true the army is in even bigger trouble because it has hardly any deployable fully combined arms formations especially logistically light ones that could be sustained.

I would say the raf typhoon force and in particular the air mobility fleets must be pretty stretched at present also they are supporting multiple deployments that could well be ongoing for a while.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Given the broader economic/post pandemic environment, and waste in the current defence spending, it’s difficult to raise defence spending. However, I would say that some limited UOR spending should be pushed by MOD, and politically astute for the government to fill some of the bigger gaps or daft short term savings.

On my list would include another 3 more P8s, a couple more Wedgetails, more Land Ceptor units, Harpoon upgrade, BMD for the T45s and sorting out the RFA personnel shortages.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 4):
Lord Jimdmereifieldwargame_insomniacJdam
”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: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Agree with all that but to which I would add accelerating the Boxer programme with additional vehicles coming from the German production line. Also if the donation of M270s to Ukraine is true then I would put in a UOR for around 36 HIMARS using the MAN HX chassis. These will have the same capabilities as the planned upgrade to our GMLRS M270s but will be quicker to be delivered and more flexible in where they can be deployed and used. We would still go ahead with the M270 modernisation but the HIARS would equip one of the two regular Regiments. THese two would increase the Army's deplorability and the capabilities of these forces, hopefully giving us the four to five Boxer Regiments, which will be given additional firepower and capabilities ASAP, no later than 2025. WE would have to fast track Boxer variants like Mortar Carrier, Under Armour ATGW/NLOS Carrier, SPAAG, Bridgelayer for starters. The Army needs to finish the bulk of its transformation no later than 2030.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

The main lesson I have drawn from Ukraine so far is not that we need new equipment (although we do) but instead that we need far larger stocks of ammunition, bombs, missiles etc. We would be running out within days (a week at most) in any high intensity conflict.
These users liked the author Phil Sayers for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Jdam »

What about integrating brimstone onto our Apaches and Stingray onto our P-8s, this way you don't need to rely on other nations for weapons. Putting a lot of pressure onto LM to get the Meteor integrated sooner wouldn't be be a bad idea either.
These users liked the author Jdam for the post:
ArmChairCivvy

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by bobp »

Phil Sayers wrote: 06 Apr 2022, 18:20 The main lesson I have drawn from Ukraine so far is not that we need new equipment (although we do) but instead that we need far larger stocks of ammunition, bombs, missiles etc. We would be running out within days (a week at most) in any high intensity conflict.
This must be done as a matter of urgency, along with a big increase in Artillery, and mobile AA firepower.
These users liked the author bobp for the post:
Phil Sayers

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

We have never rally held sufficient stocks on expendables. Even during the Cold War we were heavily reliant on NATO stocks and without these and direct help form the US we would have had great difficulty conducting the operations to retake the Falklands. This also affects training, with troops only getting to fire a very limited number of complex weapons like Javelin or even NLAW per year. They have simulators but these are not quite the same as the real think.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Jdam »

I might be comparing apples to oranges here but on the back of the German purchase of 60 Chinooks, if you were building your force from the ground up, would it be better to get 60 Chinook's or 30 Osprey's (going by the ever reliable wiki costs there). Part of me thinks there is an opportunity there that the Jerry's arnt exploiting.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by mr.fred »

Jdam wrote: 24 Apr 2022, 20:09 would it be better to get 60 Chinook's or 30 Osprey's
It would depend on what you are trying to do with them.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by RunningStrong »

Jdam wrote: 24 Apr 2022, 20:09 I might be comparing apples to oranges here but on the back of the German purchase of 60 Chinooks, if you were building your force from the ground up, would it be better to get 60 Chinook's or 30 Osprey's (going by the ever reliable wiki costs there). Part of me thinks there is an opportunity there that the Jerry's arnt exploiting.
Can't see what you'd achieve by having such a large Osprey fleet at the cost of not having Chinook. The ability to move larger numbers of troops and equipment is huge if you're in high tempo operations. I don't think Germany would benefit from the increased range of the Osprey in their CONOPS.

Further to that, if you accepted an availability ratio of 2:1, I think your airframe ratio would be nearer 3:1 Osprey:Chinook.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

The specific allegations contained in this article and the criticisms of procedure / culture are utterly damming, exceptionally serious, entirely plausible and thoroughly reprehensible:

https://www.economist.com/interactive/1 ... army-abuse

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

There is a legacy attitude of keeping things in house, especially amongst senior officers, so as not to tarnish the standing of the armed forces. until a newer generations of officers are raised in rank, there is little chance of this being dealt with unless the hierarchy of the military is torn apart publicly, and no government would want that either.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brit ... oss-europe

The exercises will see 72 Challenger 2 tanks, 12 AS90 tracked artillery guns and 120 Warrior armoured fighting vehicles deploy to countries from Finland to North Macedonia, demonstrating the Army’s modernisation into a lethal, agile and global force.

Tens of thousands of troops from NATO and Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) allies and partners are involved in the exercises. The high readiness forces from the Lead Armoured Task Force and Air Manoeuvre Task Force will take part.

Troops from B Squadron of the Queen’s Royal Hussars have deployed to Finland this week to take part in Exercise Arrow. They will be embedded into a Finnish Armoured Brigade, with participation from other partners including the US, Latvia and Estonia. The exercise will improve the ability of UK and Finnish troops to work alongside each other as part of the JEF, deterring Russian aggression in Scandinavia and the Baltic states.

In May, Exercise Hedgehog will see the Royal Welsh Battlegroup and the Royal Tank Regiment exercising on the Estonia-Latvia border alongside 18,000 NATO troops, including French and Danish, who are part of the British-led NATO enhanced Forward Presence. Hedgehog is the biggest military exercise in Estonia and takes place every four years.

Alongside Exercise Hedgehog, Exercise Defender in Poland is ongoing until late May, with 1,000 soldiers from the King’s Royal Hussars Battlegroup and C Squadron of the Light Dragoons deployed alongside troops from 11 partner nations including Poland, Denmark and the United States. This exercise involves Challenger 2 tanks and other armoured vehicles deploying from the NATO Forward Holding Base in Sennelager, Germany. The deployment is supported by 104 Theatre Sustainment Brigade operating from the UK and in bases in Europe.

Exercise Swift Response, which also began this week, sees elements of 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team and 1 Aviation Brigade Combat Team operate alongside French, American, Italian, and Albanian counterparts in North Macedonia. There are 4,500 personnel on the exercise including 2,500 British troops. The exercise involves parachute drops, helicopter-borne air assaults and sees a company of French paratroopers integrated into the 2 Parachute Regiment Battlegroup and an Italian battlegroup working to a British chain of command.

In addition to the Army’s programme, the UK will deploy a major headquarters to the Baltic region, in support of the JEF. The Standing Joint Force HQ (SJFHQ) will establish three linked nodes - in Latvia, Lithuania and the third at their home base at Northwood HQ in London, the first operational deployment for the headquarters. The UK is the framework nation for the JEF, a coalition of like-minded partners, able to respond rapidly to crises in the High North, North Atlantic, Baltic Sea region and further afield. Over 200 military personnel are involved in the operation, including specialists in cyber, space and information operations.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 29 Apr 2022, 14:02 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brit ... oss-europe

The exercises will see 72 Challenger 2 tanks, 12 AS90 tracked artillery guns and 120 Warrior armoured fighting vehicles deploy to countries from Finland to North Macedonia, demonstrating the Army’s modernisation into a lethal, agile and global force.

Tens of thousands of troops from NATO and Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) allies and partners are involved in the exercises. The high readiness forces from the Lead Armoured Task Force and Air Manoeuvre Task Force will take part.

Troops from B Squadron of the Queen’s Royal Hussars have deployed to Finland this week to take part in Exercise Arrow. They will be embedded into a Finnish Armoured Brigade, with participation from other partners including the US, Latvia and Estonia. The exercise will improve the ability of UK and Finnish troops to work alongside each other as part of the JEF, deterring Russian aggression in Scandinavia and the Baltic states.

In May, Exercise Hedgehog will see the Royal Welsh Battlegroup and the Royal Tank Regiment exercising on the Estonia-Latvia border alongside 18,000 NATO troops, including French and Danish, who are part of the British-led NATO enhanced Forward Presence. Hedgehog is the biggest military exercise in Estonia and takes place every four years.

Alongside Exercise Hedgehog, Exercise Defender in Poland is ongoing until late May, with 1,000 soldiers from the King’s Royal Hussars Battlegroup and C Squadron of the Light Dragoons deployed alongside troops from 11 partner nations including Poland, Denmark and the United States. This exercise involves Challenger 2 tanks and other armoured vehicles deploying from the NATO Forward Holding Base in Sennelager, Germany. The deployment is supported by 104 Theatre Sustainment Brigade operating from the UK and in bases in Europe.

Exercise Swift Response, which also began this week, sees elements of 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team and 1 Aviation Brigade Combat Team operate alongside French, American, Italian, and Albanian counterparts in North Macedonia. There are 4,500 personnel on the exercise including 2,500 British troops. The exercise involves parachute drops, helicopter-borne air assaults and sees a company of French paratroopers integrated into the 2 Parachute Regiment Battlegroup and an Italian battlegroup working to a British chain of command.

In addition to the Army’s programme, the UK will deploy a major headquarters to the Baltic region, in support of the JEF. The Standing Joint Force HQ (SJFHQ) will establish three linked nodes - in Latvia, Lithuania and the third at their home base at Northwood HQ in London, the first operational deployment for the headquarters. The UK is the framework nation for the JEF, a coalition of like-minded partners, able to respond rapidly to crises in the High North, North Atlantic, Baltic Sea region and further afield. Over 200 military personnel are involved in the operation, including specialists in cyber, space and information operations.
Impressive contributions from UK but feels that being stretched too thin.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

So just a over view of where I think the UK forces should be going forward

Navy

2 x Carriers , 2 x LHD's , 8 x Destroyers , 9 x ASW Frigates , 10 x GP frigates , 9 x OPV's

RFA = 5 x Tankers , 4 x MRSS , 3 x SSS , 5 x Sea lift

Army

1 x Artillery BCT , Ajax , 155mm guns , M-270 ,
2 x Armoured BCT's = CH2/3 , Ajax , Boxer ,
8 x Light Mech BBG's = Jackal , Foxhound , Bushmaster , Viking
2 x Air Assault BBG's = Chinook , Wildcat AH1 , Apache

Airforce

4 x Fast jet wings each with 32 front line jets
12 x P-8
6 x E-7
10 x Tankers
30 A400
8 x C-17

Plus Unmanned kit for all three services

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

BBGs are not the way forward in my opinion. That is how the Russian Army is organised and they have proven to be far from ideal in the War in Ukraine.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 11 May 2022, 04:10 BBGs are not the way forward in my opinion. That is how the Russian Army is organised and they have proven to be far from ideal in the War in Ukraine.
BBG's is also how the Ukrainians are fighting and they have proven very effective the Russians poor showing is down to poor leadership , poor Logistics , poor training , poor ability to manoeuvre , poor Morale , poor reason for being there i,e it would not matter what formation they adopted

We in the UK teach at any given time some 80,000 kids between 13 & 20 to wear a uniform to march to clean & shoot a assault rifle , navigation & Field craft , leadership and fist aid but an army it dose not make however saying this I reckon within 3 months I could deploy 4 battalion battle groups of 16 to 20 year old cadets that would put up a better showing than half the Russian battle groups

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »


wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 11 May 2022, 04:10 BBGs are not the way forward in my opinion. That is how the Russian Army is organised and they have proven to be far from ideal in the War in Ukraine.
Is the issue that Russians use Battalion Tactical Groups?

Or that Russian BTG's had the wrong mix of infantry versus tanks + artillery, not to mention outdated communications and inadequate logistics?? Especially given the attempt to seize and then hold urban areas.

If anything the British Army seems to have a surfeit of light infantry and relative lack of tanks and artillery.....

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

HMGs response ……… even less Challenger 3’s. I hope that this mistake (for one) is addressed as a result of Russian aggression.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I still believe that Army should be organised at Brigade level as its usual level of organisation. Obviously from these a number of Battlegroups can and will be formed, their organisation being based on the operational need. We should not have permanently formed Battalion Battle Groups,

Anyhow moving on here is the Parliamentary TV showing, covering the Defence Select Committee grilling the MoD over the recent NAO reposts.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f ... 6b3903cfd0
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
jedibeeftrix

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lord Jim wrote: 12 May 2022, 05:24 I still believe that Army should be organised at Brigade level as its usual level of organisation. Obviously from these a number of Battlegroups can and will be formed, their organisation being based on the operational need. We should not have permanently formed Battalion Battle Groups,

Anyhow moving on here is the Parliamentary TV showing, covering the Defence Select Committee grilling the MoD over the recent NAO reposts.
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f ... 6b3903cfd0

Well I think you are wrong the Light Mech are 10 x more likely to deploy as a Battalion battle groups than as a Brigade so the 1st Division should form up to 8 BBG's and 4 Reserve BBG's allowing in time of war the 1st Div to form up to 4 Brigades of 2 x reg and 1 reserve BBG's something like 1st & 2nd Rifles plus 6 Rifles BBG's coming together to make 7th Light Mech BCT

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

From where I stand that is the wrong way round. It is easier and simpler to take units from a Brigade and deploy them in Reinforces Battalion groupings than taking individual smaller independent units and form them into a Brigade. Saying that with future communication and datalinks, together with improved training including in battlefield simulators what you have suggested may be viable and therefore the way forward.

User avatar
imperialman
Donator
Posts: 128
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by imperialman »

A new type? Likely to align with FARA in the U.S.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... licopters/

Post Reply