General UK Defence Discussion

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
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: 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. Troops moving to Poland would most likely be unloaded at Hamburg anyhow as moving through the Baltic would be too dangerous, just losing one fully loaded Point would have major repercussion for any BCT being sent out.

So 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. These was a reason we had troops in Germany with the majority of the Heavy kit and the Transporters to go with many if needed. Moving heavy troops from the UK to Europe is as complicated and demanding as moving them to the Middle East. If we added around 150 40t IFV to each heavy Brigade we would need to purchase at least a 100 more HETs just to achieve the above. This is the main reason I see using Boxer is a benefit as long as it is properly equipped and configured.

The above is one of the reasons I believe any force tasked to go to Northern Norway should be one of our planned Light BCTs, maybe the one that appears to have all its Infantry class as light without protected transport. We may even be able to now preposition vehicle like VIKING in Norway now that the threat level has risen, and if Norway changes it stance on the matter.
I definitely think the heavy equipment for at least one Armoured BCT should be advance deployed on the Continent. Whether to Sennelager in Germany, or a new location in either Poland or Estonia. Maybe one battalion from each Armoured BCT delpoy in rotation, allowing for leave and training in UK.

Agree having some motorised Infantry with Boxers make a good reaction force, a bit like the US Army's Medium Stryker BCT with Stryker AFV. And the way that both Fermany and Australia use Boxer.

And likewise I am not averse to advance deploying a Company of RM Commandos withheavier equipment such as Viking ATV based in Norway.

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by TSharpe28 »

Old Op-Ed on defence cuts, does it still have relevance?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... world.html


Our defence cuts leave us looking feeble in the eyes of the world

We are appeasing our enemies and making the same mistakes as in the 1930s during the rise of Nazism

There are disquieting parallels between the situation that confronted our country some 90 years ago and that which now prevails. In the late Twenties and early Thirties, Britain was engulfed in revulsion at the horrors of the Great War and all but bankrupt as a result of it, as well as striving to recover from the Depression years. Despite the growing menace that Nazism presented to European stability, the notorious “Ten Year Rule” – which assumed that Britain would not be at war in the next decade – remained in force. The nation’s defences were progressively weakened, while calls for rearmament fell largely on deaf ears.

Against a widespread background of support for pacifism and appeasement, blind faith in collective security through the League of Nations was used to excuse unwillingness to grasp the nettle of rearmament, at least until it was nearly too late.
These users liked the author TSharpe28 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 »

Did I miss the big defence budget increase in the spring statement that some assured absolutely had to happen or they’d be rioting on the the back benches?
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
S M Hbobp

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60853052

I wonder what UK is willing/able to commit over and above the forces already sent to Poland and Estonia.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by bobp »

SW1 wrote: 23 Mar 2022, 16:15 Did I miss the big defence budget increase in the spring statement that some assured absolutely had to happen or they’d be rioting on the the back benches?
Any increases in defence spending will be paid by cuts elsewhere. All the NLAWS we sent will they order replacements I wonder.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

bobp wrote: 23 Mar 2022, 21:33
SW1 wrote: 23 Mar 2022, 16:15 Did I miss the big defence budget increase in the spring statement that some assured absolutely had to happen or they’d be rioting on the the back benches?
Any increases in defence spending will be paid by cuts elsewhere. All the NLAWS we sent will they order replacements I wonder.
You would like to think so and make further incremental improvements, I’d be starting to ensure more units have have more of them as standard.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I believe part of the reason for the four year additional funding agreement was to allow for an increase in readiness and that included increased spares and additional munitions for all three services. How this has been implemented so far is anyone's guess.

The Army definitely needs to increase its holdings of anti-tank weapons like Javelin and NLAW and is we are sending our remaining stocks of Matador disposable anti structure weapon to Ukraine they also need replacing by a similar weapon system. One option here would be the adoption of the latest version of the 84mm Carl Gustav, which has become far more common in NATO Armies these past few years due to its flexibility. The anti-tank abilities of this weapon would actually be secondary to its fire support role, though it would still be very useful in the latter role using multirole munitions.

For the Air Force, having sufficient spare, both consumable and repairable to maintain the number of airworthy aircraft has to be paramount. In the past these were reduced to a maximum of one months peacetime usage, but this has to increase together with alterations to any support contracts with industry. After that having a stock level of munitions to cover a minimum of a months high usage should be seriously looked at, historically our holding having be far less than this.

For the Navy, readiness should also be the key with the service having enough personnel to crew its available ships as well as the consumables such as missiles to fully equip our warships with more than one loadout. We should aim to have at least 50% of our ships ready for sea at anyone time.

TSharpe28
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 25 Feb 2022, 04:22
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by TSharpe28 »

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... s-defense/

"But Sunak barely made mention of defense and confined his statement to tax and other domestic issues."

Which Chancellor ever said otherwise? :angel:

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The War in Ukraine is really going to put pressure on the Ajax programme to decide whether it proceeds or is cancelled. SO much has been invested in this programme but the Government seems determined to hold the Contractor, GD-UK to delivery the 528 vehicles in the agreed variants and in a condition such that they are fully fit for purpose, all within the agreed budget. This in turn means all costs for altering the platform will have to be born by GD-UK meaning they are going to probably find the contract delivers little or no profit for them. The only cost the MoD may have to bear is if new Headphones/headgear is adopted to help with noise issues for the crew, though notably not for any Dismounts.

The fact that teh Treasury is going to have to find new money for the MoD will most likely be done on the quiet or mixed in with announcement of deliveries to Ukraine. In the grand scheme of things an increase of a couple of £Bn here or there each year is a small amount, but would make a major difference to the MoD and its Equipment plans.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Jdam »

Inspired by what I said in the Challenger 3 thread.
The government might feel they have an optics problem in any defence increase, our increases if any will be going to be filling in the gabs and reversing cuts made by the government, not really a good look for them. Upgrading all our Challenger, buying the original 5 E-7, new anti ship missile and keeping our mine sweepers would seem like a must right now but like I said hardly going to generate a lot of headlines. :|
Do we still expect to see any budget increases for the UK military? while still very dangerous Russia isn't exactly rolling over Ukraine there may be some that feels the current NATO forces would be able to defeat Russia in a conventional war. What would Russia be able to do against a the modern command and control abilities of NATO?

Budget comes up in a lot of threads (and for good reason) but I keep getting this sinking feeling nothing is going to happen for the UK and I wonder long term how much of the budget commitments from other countries will come to fruition when everything leaves the news headlines.

Surely something is going to change in the MOD but I am not sure what it is. :think:

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The government is spending beyond the 2% of gdp all the “experts” have called for, for years. That is the NATO target. Most that have announced increases are so they come up to that number. It’s allowed government to do away with expressing things in terms of defence planning assumptions and forces at readiness for contingency which suits them perfectly.

If you want to move faster in filling gaps ect around the defence of NATO, U.K. territory then give up those forces more associated with invasions.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Offence is the best form of Defence! :mrgreen:

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 27 Mar 2022, 16:39 Offence is the best form of Defence! :mrgreen:
Dont lose what you’ve already got

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

But you are arguing for precisely that ???? :mrgreen:

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 28 Mar 2022, 03:21 But you are arguing for precisely that ???? :mrgreen:
Referring to territory not equipment

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 what is included in our spending on defence as a part of our GDP needs to be properly filtered. Pensions for example should not be part of defence spending per se but a separate line on the MoD's budget that is excluded. What costs should be included are, active personal, equipment, logistics, accommodation, training as it foundations. From this we should be able to see what is being spent on defence of the UK now and for the future. The level of spending should be driven primarily based of a cleat threat assessment and what is needed to counter this. After that the need to meet a Governments foreign and domestic policy and how that impacts on defence. These are separate form the first stream which is locked in. The second stream therefore finds itself already covered by the first or adds additional funding, never subtracts.

If fact the first stream should not be changed by Governmental policy as it is based on what independent experts believe are the threats to the UK and it dominions. An alternative view would be to retain the first stream but say that i can be affected by Governmental policy but the Government must argue its case for any reduction, and to be transparent this has to be in the public domain. Obviously some areas would be more restricted like issues with CASD, but the number of these would be kept to a minimum and again their existence would have to be through an open debate.

Just a few ideas, sorry for any typos.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... he-arctic/

The UK Armed Forces will be doing more with our close Arctic allies and partners, as part of NATO, bilaterally, and through other multilateral groupings such as the Joint Expeditionary Force. The Royal Navy, including our dedicated Littoral Response Group (North), will periodically operate in the High North alongside Allies and partners, the Army will expand its cold-weather training, and the RAF will deploy P8A maritime patrol aircraft to the region and continue participating in Icelandic air policing,” he said.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Those P-8s are certainly going to be racking up airframe house at this rate. Having just nine means they are going to be worked very hard. How many Nimrods did we have for the same role, ignoring the number of MRA4s.
These users liked the author Lord Jim 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 »

Let alone elsewhere across the globe (when required) ! :mrgreen:

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Treasury probably regard them as just “Nice to have”, after all they think that we managed ok without them for a number of years ! :crazy:

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

The reason given for p8 being based on a civil airframe was so that it would be able to have high usage we have double the fleet Norway has after all.. provided you have the crews to do it which they don’t.

Also much more of the their historic task can be handed over to unmanned systems, to do the dull boring surveillance, monitoring. Just need more crews on the ground back at base monitoring which also maybe in short supply.

The fact that there’s a now a question over security in the region in which we live means adventures are out unless you wish to risk you home base. The layers of the onion build out it was ever thus.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Which is why layers of the “onion” should NEVER be stripped away! :mrgreen:

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

But adventures are liked by the Government as it promoted Global Britain and is good for their PR. The Media has almost wholly regarded the Ukraine War as a land conflict with a smaller air component so maritime needs will get little if any boost, assuming there is one at all.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Q1. What does Putin deduce from the Ukraine War?
Q2. What did he hope to gain?

A1. Army not up to scratch, let’s try the Naval and Air arms instead?
A2. What Putin has clearly sought to do from 2014 onwards, is to ease and increase Russia’s
access to Warm-water ports. To view the Ukraine War as an Army event only? I don’t
think so! No self-respecting UK politician should seriously give such a notion any
consideration, even for a split-second. What does he want the ports for? Firstly, so he can
dominate the Black Sea to an even greater degree and interfere with the Trade (and
Weapons shipments) of the other Black Sea states on which he may have further designs. :mrgreen:

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »


Post Reply