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 »

Possible replacement for the Wildcat in AAC service?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

SW1 wrote: 17 Mar 2022, 13:37

Sky sabre deploying to Poland at there request
The fact that we did 'similar' for Saudi, after the drone attacks on their refineries & onward distribuition, did not get as much as a mention
- of course the Netherlands and Germany did the same for Turkey, early in the Syria conflict (after Russia involvement)... but that was for a NATO border. But so is this.
These users liked the author ArmChairCivvy for the post:
SW1
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: 22 Mar 2022, 10:26 I think the idea was for rail to be an option. The Channel Tunnel would be heavily protected though as it would be used for logistics anyhow, and as such defending it against Enemy SF our other assets would be a priority for both the UK and France.
I have spotted a v idle "equestrian" facility/ estate , right on top of the Channel Tunnel. Drill down... detotonate
- but where to report such a thing? Go to the local Police Station, and they will arrest you as a lunatic. Seeing 'things'
Lord Jim wrote: 22 Mar 2022, 10:26 to get the tracked vehicles the rest of the way is going to take all the HETS we have for just a single Brigade and its Challenger 3s and Ajax. And these will have to be brought from the UK as part of the loadout requiring more Points to move the Brigade.
[
Check out where the largest 'climate controlled ' facility for UK tanks is

quote="Lord Jim" post_id=138138 time=1647944789 user_id=695]
Moving heavy troops from the UK to Europe is as complicated and demanding as moving them to the Middle East.
[/quote]
... and you might find the statement not to be true
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: 18 Mar 2022, 11:43 Lets not forget Starstreak is Day & night capable weapon and when on Stormer or rapid ranger mounts it is very effective
Tempest414 wrote: 18 Mar 2022, 18:46 The stormer and Rapid ranger both a stabilized IR sight which when locked on auto tracks the target leaving the operator only to pull the trigger for a 98% hit rate
Might explain why Stormers are goining out there. As nothing else is on that platform (anymore).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SKB »


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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The pacific tilt ……

https://amp.lbc.co.uk/news/british-sold ... rld-war-3/

The new head of the British Army's told his troops they must prepare to fight the Russian army in a potential World War Three.

General Sir Patrick Sanders took over from General Sir Mark Carleton Smith on Monday and wrote to his charges about the challenges they face.


He told British soldiers they are the generation that must prepare "to fight in Europe once again" as the conflict in Ukraine continues.

"There is now a burning imperative to forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle," Sir Patrick said.

"We are the generation that must prepare the Army to fight in Europe once again," he added.

General Sanders added: "I am the first Chief of the General Staff since 1941 to take command of the Army in the shadow of a land war in Europe involving a continental power.

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine underlines our core purpose — to protect the UK by being ready to fight and win wars on land.”

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

The pre-requisite of being able “to protect the UK by being ready to fight and win wars on land.” is, of course, by being ready to fight and win wars at sea and in the air (and at the same time) as
well ! A Defence budget that is adequate to meet the threat rather than convenience, is what is now required. :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

SW1 wrote: 19 Jun 2022, 15:45 The pacific tilt ……

https://amp.lbc.co.uk/news/british-sold ... rld-war-3/

The new head of the British Army's told his troops they must prepare to fight the Russian army in a potential World War Three...
Nothing here that conflicts with the tilt:

It is after all only a tilt, not a pivot.
The tilt might largely be Naval (in deployments) and Air (in tech collaboration).

NATO might very sensibly be the focus of the Army.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 19 Jun 2022, 18:42
SW1 wrote: 19 Jun 2022, 15:45 The pacific tilt ……

https://amp.lbc.co.uk/news/british-sold ... rld-war-3/

The new head of the British Army's told his troops they must prepare to fight the Russian army in a potential World War Three...
Nothing here that conflicts with the tilt:

It is after all only a tilt, not a pivot.
The tilt might largely be Naval (in deployments) and Air (in tech collaboration).

NATO might very sensibly be the focus of the Army.
There is more of the army deployed in the pacific than the navy and that was the case prior to the fancy pr language and that is the case after it too.

The truth of the matter is from a hard defence prospective and it’s force structure for the U.K. the European and Atlantic areas is the only real concern.

Asia from a diplomatic and technology point of view may well be of ever greater concern and engagement but from a military point of view it’s as relevant to us as europe is to the Japanese and Australian defence planners.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Well …………………. ! The Japanese, South Koreans, Australians, Singaporeans, Indians and New Zealanders (in addition to the U.S.A.) seem to think that we are RELEVANT.
Or perhaps you are making a (rather poor) case for US Isolationism (on the back of your proposition). :crazy:

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 19 Jun 2022, 20:23 Well …………………. ! The Japanese, South Koreans, Australians, Singaporeans, Indians and New Zealanders (in addition to the U.S.A.) seem to think that we are RELEVANT.
Or perhaps you are making a (rather poor) case for US Isolationism (on the back of your proposition). :crazy:
Well I would expect all those countries would hope for U.K. support diplomatically in organisations like the UN and most would like to buy our technology or receive intelligence from us but I would be willing to bet not a single one of those countries has defence plans for there respective countries that are based on U.K. armed forces deployed in any number for there defence..

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

SW1 wrote: 19 Jun 2022, 19:06
The truth of the matter is from a hard defence prospective and it’s force structure for the U.K. the European and Atlantic areas is the only real concern.
that appears not to be the conclusion of John Bew, nor too that of the Gov't that adopted his conclusion.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

The UK Government can talk about the pivot to the Indo Pacific or the focus on high north, but unless it backs up this with additional defence spending to meet those missions, then it is just empty words.

The UK armed forces are facing many current and upcoming capability gaps before the promised new equipment supposedly arrives in 5-10 years time. Unless we have additional investment, then we have to be less ambitious on what we can realistically hope to achieve.

So that means for RN focussing on North Atlantic and Norwegian Sea, and for British Army focussing on Northern Europe.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Maginot Line thinking is THE MOST DANGEROUS of all. :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixRepulse

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

AS far as Army units deployed in the far east, we might as well ignore the Ghurkha Battalion as that has been stationed for decades in Brunei under special circumstances. It should not be included in any description of any pivot to the far east, and the same must be said of our Battalion in Cyprus.

I strongly believe we need to establish a fully manned BCT in either Germany or Poland, which would share the responsibilities with UK based BCTs in providing the manpower of our Battlegroup in the Baltics. On top of this we need to re-establish the organisation and infrastructure to deploy 3rd (UK) Division to Europe in a timely manner, aka weeks not months, this formation comprising the Army's two heavy BCTs and its Deep Fires BCTs. Its two Light BCTs and 16 Air Assault BCT also having a role here in addition to a more global reach.

SO in addition to a substantial amount of new kit, some of which is already on order, the Army needs to ensure it has the necessary manpower levels, the right amount of training and a much higher state of readiness more akin to how things were in the 1980s.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »


topman
Member
Posts: 771
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Tokelau

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by topman »

I wonder if anything actually comes of it.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I guess we will only know that if the force is exercised at scale along the lines the old lionheart exercises.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »






Not sure why after such a comprehensive defence review just last year these “gaps” where not highlighted and addressed then. Not been very good at spending the money they have got so for
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
Jdamwargame_insomniac

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Despite the Russian invasion of Crimea and defato occupation of large parts of eastern Ukraine in 2014,the Politicians were not willing to accept the step hange in the threat Russia posed. They wanted to concentrate on a Global Britain, linking in with the results of BREXIT, and allowing the planned to concentrate on small formations dispersed all over the world supporting allies in Africa and Far East.

A
As for NATO, once again the Army's unit strength and under equipped units were reshuffled to cover further reduction in equipment and hide a multitude of capability gaps as well as to be willing to accept the Army would not be ready in any shape or form until the end of the decade at the earliest. The current invasion of Ukrain on a large scale by Russia has forced a change, with the UK one of the leaders in the support of Ukraine, but again unwilling to change the existing plans ofr the Armed Forces laid down in the Integrated Review and the related Command Paper.

Until the Army especially is brought up to fighting strength with at least its two Mechanised, one Deep Strike and one of its Light BCTs. properly equipping then by replacing old equipment and filling the known capability gaps whilst at the same time increasing their capacity. Each of these BCTs must have a strong reserve component to provide ready replacement ofr casualties, and all units must have access to greater quantities of spares and consumables.

THe 310Bn per year increase asked for must dovetail with the four year increase that will last up until 2025. Orders for new kit must be fast tracked, using lessons learned from the UR programme in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need the MRV(P) programme restarted to euip at least one of the LIght BCTs, and we need to reduce the number of Infantry Battalions classed as "Light Role".

For the RAF it need a bit more of everything. Firstly it need the number of E-7 Wedgetails increase to at least five and the number of P-8 Poseidon's increase to at least eighteen with a similar number of the planned Protector UAS delivered as Sea Guardian derivatives. TO compensate for the early retirement of the C-130J fleet we should be looking to purchase at least another eight A400 Atlas.

AS for its fast movers, the RAF should be looking at installing the new radar on both Tranch2 and Tranche 3 Typhoons bringing all up to a common standard or as near as possible. We may even need additional Typhoons to enable ti standing to of wings at both Leuchars an THe F-35 fleet should be sufficient to allow the surge deployment of three Squadrons of thirty six aircraft to the in service Air Craft Carrier/ There must also be increases in Pilots, other personnel, spares, consumables and precision munitions. IF needed more money must be allocated to SPEAR 3 , a glide package for our Paveway IVs and FC/ADW must enter service before 2030 in both the RAF and RN. Conningsby that can generate at least thirty six aircraft for a long tern deployment of double that if the balloon goes up in Europe.

For the Royal Navy, its two ongoing building programmes for escorts needs to be accelerated and the design of the T-31 to be altered , utilising its inate modular construction to replace the current "Mushrooms", with at least two , eight cell Mk41 VLS. ExLS inserts should be used for Sea Ceptor with others to be used of AShW, longer ranged SAMs or ASW weapons. As the RCN has already ordered ExLS inserts for its new Escorts the system can no longer be really considered experimental of simply a paper design. The FSSS order needs to be placed with the vessels built wherever they can be built the most efficiently and delivered before 2030. Finally plans need to be advanced for the MRDD vessels, but the emphasis of their design should not be mainly for out of area operation, but for operating on either NATO's northen of southern flanks.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

If we get this extra money I would like to see a push from two to three heavy BCT's of

1 x Armoured regt = 44 CH=3
1 x Cavalry regt = 60 Ajax
2 x Infantry Battalions = 200 Boxer
1 x Artillery Support = 20 x 155mm Boxer , 10 x MAN/MLRS , Air defence & UAV
1 x Logistics Support

we should also push for 3 x Light Mech BCT's 1 x Viking and 2 x wheeled of

1 x Cavalry = 60 x Jackal
2 x Infantry = 200 x Viking or Foxhound & Bushmaster
1 x Artillery support 20 x 105mm , 10 x MAN/MLRS , Air defence , UAV
1 x Logistic support

All Infantry heavy and light should have 60 x APC/ C&C , 10 x SP Mortar , 10 x Brimstone Over Watch 8 x Assault Pioneer , 8 x Ambulance

Also all Cavalry vehicles should carry 2 x Hero 120 which can be used for both deep recce and strike

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Lord Jim wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 06:24 Despite the Russian invasion of Crimea and defato occupation of large parts of eastern Ukraine in 2014,the Politicians were not willing to accept the step hange in the threat Russia posed. They wanted to concentrate on a Global Britain, linking in with the results of BREXIT, and allowing the planned to concentrate on small formations dispersed all over the world supporting allies in Africa and Far East.
Yes, Russia is dangerous but aside from Nuclear War the Ukraine conflict enforces that it’s power, even on its borders is limited. We haven’t seen yet what China is capable of, but if you are worried about Russia I have news for you.

The reality is that the world isn’t simple, even economic disputes the other side of the world can have global effects to the UK. The IR for me outlined this perfectly.

The question is has the risk assessment changed - the answer is yes in Europe, but I’d add it has elsewhere also and will continue to do so - especially as the US loses its position as the sole superpower.

For me, we still need to look at through the lens of what presence do we need to (as best we can and afford) reduce / mitigate known risks to UK interests when coupled with a globally deployable fighting force appropriate to the global position / role of our country. The key bit is “deployable”, the Army cannot do this effectively currently.

Perhaps, a few T31s as specified alongside a few RFAs, with the threat of SSNs, is the right forward presence outside of NATO. The same with the limited number of Army Bases (inc Training Facilities) and Air Bases for the other two services. Coupled of course with regular exercising of the globally deployable force.

For NATO the question on what is required is based on our role and objectives. I’d argue the most important role remains Sea Control (inc ASW) and Air Supremacy of the North Atlantic. Second would be a toss up between a token flag waving force in the Baltics and support for Norway. I do not see a need to return to BOAR.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
jedibeeftrixwargame_insomniac
”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: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 14:00
Lord Jim wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 06:24 Despite the Russian invasion of Crimea and defato occupation of large parts of eastern Ukraine in 2014,the Politicians were not willing to accept the step hange in the threat Russia posed. They wanted to concentrate on a Global Britain, linking in with the results of BREXIT, and allowing the planned to concentrate on small formations dispersed all over the world supporting allies in Africa and Far East.
Yes, Russia is dangerous but aside from Nuclear War the Ukraine conflict enforces that it’s power, even on its borders is limited. We haven’t seen yet what China is capable of, but if you are worried about Russia I have news for you.

The reality is that the world isn’t simple, even economic disputes the other side of the world can have global effects to the UK. The IR for me outlined this perfectly.

The question is has the risk assessment changed - the answer is yes in Europe, but I’d add it has elsewhere also and will continue to do so - especially as the US loses its position as the sole superpower.

For me, we still need to look at through the lens of what presence do we need to (as best we can and afford) reduce / mitigate known risks to UK interests when coupled with a globally deployable fighting force appropriate to the global position / role of our country. The key bit is “deployable”, the Army cannot do this effectively currently.

Perhaps, a few T31s as specified alongside a few RFAs, with the threat of SSNs, is the right forward presence outside of NATO. The same with the limited number of Army Bases (inc Training Facilities) and Air Bases for the other two services. Coupled of course with regular exercising of the globally deployable force.

For NATO the question on what is required is based on our role and objectives. I’d argue the most important role remains Sea Control (inc ASW) and Air Supremacy of the North Atlantic. Second would be a toss up between a token flag waving force in the Baltics and support for Norway. I do not see a need to return to BOAR.
The CGS covers this in his land warfare conference speech

“Given the commitments of the US in Asia during the 20s and 30s, I believe that the burden for conventional deterrence in Europe will fall increasingly to European members of NATO and the JEF. This is right in my view: taking up the burden in Europe means we can free more US resources to ensure that our values and interests are protected in the Indo-Pacific”

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by jedibeeftrix »

SW1 wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 14:14

The CGS covers this in his land warfare conference speech

“Given the commitments of the US in Asia during the 20s and 30s, I believe that the burden for conventional deterrence in Europe will fall increasingly to European members of NATO and the JEF. This is right in my view: taking up the burden in Europe means we can free more US resources to ensure that our values and interests are protected in the Indo-Pacific”
Was he speaking explicitly in his capacity as head of the Army, about how the Army should be configured?
Or was he swimming outside his lane and speaking for what he thinks the Armed Forces as a whole should be doing?

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 14:24
SW1 wrote: 28 Jun 2022, 14:14

The CGS covers this in his land warfare conference speech

“Given the commitments of the US in Asia during the 20s and 30s, I believe that the burden for conventional deterrence in Europe will fall increasingly to European members of NATO and the JEF. This is right in my view: taking up the burden in Europe means we can free more US resources to ensure that our values and interests are protected in the Indo-Pacific”
Was he speaking explicitly in his capacity as head of the Army, about how the Army should be configured?
Or was he swimming outside his lane and speaking for what he thinks the Armed Forces as a whole should be doing?
I linked the whole speech to the future form of the army thread, suggestion was you’ll hear more at the nato meeting tomorrow I doubt his comments would be contrary to what’s coming

Post Reply