General UK Defence Discussion

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote: 18 May 2023, 16:05 Are Tornado, Typhoon, AMRAAM and Meteor not an export success?

Turning to the army I'm struggling, Land Ceptor CAMM and Boxer?
None in the same league as the Global Combat Ship and AUKUS in recent years.

Tempest is the RAFs big chance but where is the urgency to really ramp up drone development with UK PLC? Why not develop a medium helo that other nations are falling over themselves to buy? Where is the attempt to enlarge the RAF without increased spending? It’s not immediately apparent.

Army procurement is a car crash. Who would want Ajax? Do the Army even want it anymore? Boxer and its associated industrial strategy is a good start but now seemingly everything the Army needs is going to be stuck onto a very expensive Boxer hull. Completely unnecessary. It should have been a mixed procurement of CV90, Boxer and a 6X6 like Patria. Why not develop a cost effective UK 6X6 or 8x8 APC with SuperCat? Why not develop a cheap and plentiful Landrover replacement? The Army has had a lot of money and a lot of time and the results are a disaster requiring even more time and money to sort out.

This is a great chance for the Army and RAF to push on and follow RNs lead in the Defence Command Paper refresh, but will they? Not sure.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 18 May 2023, 16:40
tomuk wrote: 18 May 2023, 16:05 Are Tornado, Typhoon, AMRAAM and Meteor not an export success?

Turning to the army I'm struggling, Land Ceptor CAMM and Boxer?
None in the same league as the Global Combat Ship and AUKUS in recent years.

Tempest is the RAFs big chance but where is the urgency to really ramp up drone development with UK PLC? Why not develop a medium helo that other nations are falling over themselves to buy? Where is the attempt to enlarge the RAF without increased spending? It’s not immediately apparent.

Army procurement is a car crash. Who would want Ajax? Do the Army even want it anymore? Boxer and its associated industrial strategy is a good start but now seemingly everything the Army needs is going to be stuck onto a very expensive Boxer hull. Completely unnecessary. It should have been a mixed procurement of CV90, Boxer and a 6X6 like Patria. Why not develop a cost effective UK 6X6 or 8x8 APC with SuperCat? Why not develop a cheap and plentiful Landrover replacement? The Army has had a lot of money and a lot of time and the results are a disaster requiring even more time and money to sort out.

This is a great chance for the Army and RAF to push on and follow RNs lead in the Defence Command Paper refresh, but will they? Not sure.
When the marine sector gets close to half the aerospace one maybe they will attempt to get to the same league…

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... stics-2021

Chart 9 depicts global and UK defence export performance by sector across the 2012 to 2021 period based on orders/contracts signed. Where exports do not clearly fit within a specific sector they have been included as ‘other’.

As is evident from the top bar (the Global % position), the Aerospace sector by value accounted for over half (56%[footnote 1]) of all defence exports. This is unsurprising given the fact that high value combat aircraft, transport aircraft, trainer aircraft and attack and transport helicopters reside in this domain. The Land sector accounted for a fifth (20%[footnote 1]) of all defence exports globally. The Sea sector (13%[footnote 1]) is the lowest sector globally by value.

The UK is largely dependent (72%[footnote 1]) on its aerospace sector, including platforms, equipment, and support.

The aerospace sector by value in 2021 accounted for 55% of all defence exports globally. Where exports do not clearly fit within a specific sector they have been included as ‘other’.

The lower bar highlights the continuing significance of aerospace to the UK equating to 46%[footnote 1] of total UK defence exports.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Poiuytrewq

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 18 May 2023, 17:58 When the marine sector gets close to half the aerospace one maybe they will attempt to get to the same league…
Very interesting, thank you.

It’s clear during the period 2012-2021 the aerospace sector performed better than the rest but how well will it perform between 2022-2031? Could any gap before Tempest have been avoided and where is any cutting edge UK drone technology which would highly exportable? It’s not clear.

Conversely the maritime sector performed very poorly in the same time period but why would the UK need to build new ships when we give so many RN/RFA vessels away for the cost of a refit? A few OPVs didn’t move the dial.

2022/2031 and beyond is looking much better for maritime exports with both Babcock and BAE exporting strongly and it remains to be seen how the H&W (Belfast+Appledore) contract works out but Appledore has export potential.

I’m not sure there is even anything positive to say at present about Army vehicle procurement although the Land Industrial Strategy is promising.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 18 May 2023, 19:10
SW1 wrote: 18 May 2023, 17:58 When the marine sector gets close to half the aerospace one maybe they will attempt to get to the same league…
Very interesting, thank you.

It’s clear during the period 2012-2021 the aerospace sector performed better than the rest but how well will it perform between 2022-2031? Could any gap before Tempest have been avoided and where is any cutting edge UK drone technology which would highly exportable? It’s not clear.

Conversely the maritime sector performed very poorly in the same time period but why would the UK need to build new ships when we give so many RN/RFA vessels away for the cost of a refit? A few OPVs didn’t move the dial.

2022/2031 and beyond is looking much better for maritime exports with both Babcock and BAE exporting strongly and it remains to be seen how the H&W (Belfast+Appledore) contract works out but Appledore has export potential.

I’m not sure there is even anything positive to say at present about Army vehicle procurement although the Land Industrial Strategy is promising.
I think there is perhaps a tendency to look at the sectors purely from what the mod buys and assume that is all the sectors are working on and exporting. Is there a gap before tempest or is it perhaps the perceived gap only the appearance of a gap in the public domain?
You could lament about many missed opportunities of decision on drone designs over the past 15 years but that’s perhaps from our own service’s perspectives than others.

What are we exporting from bae and Babcock in that time though? Canadian and aus have both already bought the design for type 26 and modifying in country with assistance same with arrowhead but how much of those ships are we exporting from the UK?

Submarines with Australia will certainly be a bonus but will that mainly be reactors from rolls Royce? The more we can export from all sectors the better. But increasingly it will be major sub systems and weaponry as many countries want their own assembly and we don’t appear to have much joined up thinking in focussing cash from R&D to fielded equipment in subsystems but we are a little better with weapons.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SW1 wrote: 18 May 2023, 19:36 I think there is perhaps a tendency to look at the sectors purely from what the mod buys and assume that is all the sectors are working on and exporting.
If Tempest is a winner then any gap won’t last long. An overall joined up combined defence and UK PLC export strategy appears eternally elusive.

What is BAE and Babcock actually exporting from the U.K. that hasn’t been a product of UK procurement? Perhaps Leonardo and Rolls-Royce are different in that regard.
What are we exporting from bae and Babcock in that time though? Canadian and aus have both already bought the design for type 26 and modifying in country with assistance same with arrowhead but how much of those ships are we exporting from the UK?

Submarines with Australia will certainly be a bonus but will that mainly be reactors from rolls Royce? The more we can export from all sectors the better. But increasingly it will be major sub systems and weaponry as many countries want their own assembly and we don’t appear to have much joined up thinking in focussing cash from R&D to fielded equipment in subsystems but we are a little better with weapons.
How realistic is it to think that Australia and Canada are going to take the time to remanufacture thousands of component parts to satisfy there own industrial base? Maybe some of the big ticket items but as the dust settles and the budgets inevitably overrun the cheaper options will be sourced. Hopefully that means the UK manufacturers gets a larger slice of the pie.

Will the Mk45s be an American export likewise the 57mm/40mm Swedish? To a certain extent it depends how you want to quantify it.

Clearly shutting down the UK’s heavy industries is now coming back to bite Army procurement in a big way. What can be salvaged from the wreckage? With Europe rearming it’s as good a time as any to reconstruct the lost capacity.

sol
Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by sol »

So there are lot of talks about cuts to the British Army recently



Only thing is that it is not clear is this mean that earlier announced cuts will go forward or will there be further cuts. Because there are rumors about additional cuts, some even mentioning about reduction to just 60k personnel. But those are not confirmed and only source is "unnamed source". I guess we will might have to wait till the end of June when review is expected to be published.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »


Rentaghost
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 07 Sep 2020, 09:10
Scotland

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Rentaghost »

SW1 wrote: 25 May 2023, 21:32
Presumably other NATO nations will be looking to add the same technological mass without also cutting the headcounts though?

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Rentaghost wrote: 26 May 2023, 09:24
SW1 wrote: 25 May 2023, 21:32
Presumably other NATO nations will be looking to add the same technological mass without also cutting the headcounts though?
I’m guessing that depends on how much they pay there personnel. Time and again it shows technology and in particular precision beats mass in a battle. Now there is more to war than simply winning the battle. But also that the polish and German regular army is smaller than ours currently.

I think it’s sometimes over looked that russia committed most of its army to Ukraine about what 200k troops. As a very simplistic calculation if each of natos 31 countries offered 7500 troops the Russians would have been outnumbered! Now granted small countries will have less and big countries more but the benefit of such an alliance allows collective mass and technology without needing to do it all yourself.

It really comes down to what are you intending to have to do all by yourself and what are you intending to do with others. There is nothing really beyond defending our own territories that we have to do by ourselves.

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by GarethDavies1 »

Complete bullshit

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Clive F »

I do like a constructive discussion.
These users liked the author Clive F for the post (total 2):
new guydmereifield

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Situation in the balkans is tense

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65725001

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

No the Army needs to be maintained at 80+k if we have any hope of having a proper balance going forward we need to have

3 x Armoured brigades each with 3 infantry battalions
3 x Mechanised Brigades same as above
2 x Rapid response Brigades same as above
1 x Deep fires brigade

We need 8 x mixed SP gun and MLRS Artillery regt's
We need 3 x Light gun ( by which I mean it has to be air portable ) regt's

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Wouldn’t profess to be an expert, but it feels to be the right direction to have a smaller but more mobile and better equipped force.

Would say a few things though:
- Cap badge obsession has to go from the regular force to make it work and stop it distorting the structure. Personally, I think moving cap badges to reserve / territorial units would be a smart move.
- The current unit size constructs (platoon, company, battalion, brigade and division) need to be updated. The direction of a smaller number of brigades / divisions is wrong, each formation has a purpose and the direction is that with automation etc it can have the same or more effective with fewer soldiers. So why not battalions of less than 500 soldiers with 12 battalions to a division? This would mean the army could have 5 combined arms divisions, plus light/SF units, resulting in a balanced and sustainable force.
- Provide garrison forces through a combination of local units (most BOTs have these now), rotating reserve units and forward based light forces.
- Scale may still be needed, ensuring investment in the capability to increase rapidly reserve units to fight independently is not a nice to have.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
new guy
”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: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Another thing to consider in all of this - probably not a good read for those that do not like those roaming B2 River visits EoS :D

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-soft ... -suggests/
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_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

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by new guy »

what is EoS?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3954
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

new guy wrote: 28 May 2023, 12:24 what is EoS?
East of Suez

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1183
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by new guy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 28 May 2023, 13:46
new guy wrote: 28 May 2023, 12:24 what is EoS?
East of Suez
👍 many thanks.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by topman »



Issues with pay continue

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by topman »


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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

topman wrote: 03 Jun 2023, 17:39 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... urvey-2023


Full report available here.
Do you think there will be any appreciable change. Outflows of personnel seem unsustainable at present from the outside looking in

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by topman »

No, I don't see any political will to change much.
There's gaps all over, in manning, people are leaving faster than they can be recruited and trained. Some promotion boards are running really high as many leave or turn it down.

Often one of the main limitations on deployment. Mentioned often on here why aren't more units going on ops or exercise, quite often there isn't enough trained people to go.
These users liked the author topman for the post:
SW1

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »



The 79th anniversary of D-Day

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://www.thejc.com/news/news/iran%27 ... qRaYwvkRR0

Scientists at British universities helped the Iranian regime develop technology that can be used in its drone programme and fighter jets, a JC investigation has revealed.

Senior MPs and peers expressed deep concern over the findings, with a government spokesperson saying Britain would “not accept collaborations which compromise our national security”.

Yet the JC can reveal that in one project researchers in Britain worked to improve drone engines, boosting their altitude, speed and range. It was funded by Tehran.

Another British university worked with Iranian counterparts to test sophisticated new control systems for jet engines, aimed at increasing their “manoeuvrability and response time” in “military applications”.

At least 11 British universities, including Cambridge and Imperial College London, are involved, with staff producing at least 16 studies with potential Iranian military applications.

Other UK-based scientists have worked with Iran to research the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as mobile base stations to extend the range of communications systems, on special alloys for military aircraft and coatings to upgrade armour plating.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5549
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 10 Jun 2023, 09:01 https://www.thejc.com/news/news/iran%27 ... qRaYwvkRR0

Scientists at British universities helped the Iranian regime develop technology that can be used in its drone programme and fighter jets, a JC investigation has revealed.

Senior MPs and peers expressed deep concern over the findings, with a government spokesperson saying Britain would “not accept collaborations which compromise our national security”.

Yet the JC can reveal that in one project researchers in Britain worked to improve drone engines, boosting their altitude, speed and range. It was funded by Tehran.

Another British university worked with Iranian counterparts to test sophisticated new control systems for jet engines, aimed at increasing their “manoeuvrability and response time” in “military applications”.

At least 11 British universities, including Cambridge and Imperial College London, are involved, with staff producing at least 16 studies with potential Iranian military applications.

Other UK-based scientists have worked with Iran to research the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as mobile base stations to extend the range of communications systems, on special alloys for military aircraft and coatings to upgrade armour plating.
Well on the upside we have all the know how we need to make a shit ton of our own drones on the cheap

Post Reply