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 »

Given that Rapier FSC is still an effective but short ranged all weather SAM system, serious consideration I believe, should be given to re equipping the RAF Regiment as a stop gap until more Sky Sabre can be purchased, or these should be given to Ukraine to give then a system than can engage Russian aircraft attacking at night. The first is needed as we do not have enough Sky Sabre on order to protect any Army deployment above a Battalion Battlegroup let alone allocate any to defends other important locations such as airfields and logistic hubs. The second is needed as Russia has learnt to fly at night to avoid being engaged by Stingers. to have any real accuracy the Russian jets need to fly lower than NATO ones as their access to guided munition seems to be limited and so they are using "Dumb" munitions, with the expected horrific civilian casualties. Well in my opinion they are.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lets not forget Starstreak is Day & night capable weapon and when on Stormer or rapid ranger mounts it is very effective

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

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
Sorry this is probably a dumb question but how is Starstreak night capable? I thought the operator had to visually track the target?

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by mr.fred »

Phil Sayers wrote: 18 Mar 2022, 13:33
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
Sorry this is probably a dumb question but how is Starstreak night capable? I thought the operator had to visually track the target?
The operator has to be able to point the system at the target, so if he's got a thermal or image intensifier sight to do so, then it's effective at night.

The same is kind of true of any SAM system.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
Phil Sayers

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

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
These users liked the author Tempest414 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 »

There is also associated ground based IRST ,cannot remember its actual name but it provides cueing data for the launcher, for the Stormer mounted, the three round Pedestal Launcher, or simply for firing from the shoulder.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Repulse »

The Chancellor was on the BBC this morning, it’s very clear that he is not in favour of increasing defence spending further. Given the broader economy pressures I’m not surprised, but the MOD needs to now think creatively on what it can do more without new cash.

Having said that, I would still be pushing for some flexibility to avoid stupid short term cash savings by putting useful things in moth balls, but we are talking millions not billions.
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

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by inch »

Think he will get a right slating from his own party if he doesn't do something about defence tbh ,he would be heading for the exit door shortly I think

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2782
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

I was reading elsewhere (Guardian or Telegraph, possibly) that Sunak has around £9b uncommitted in his budget, out of the additional £50b per annum raised through recent tax changes. If he was to commit that to Defence, it would take expenditure to around 2.5% of GDP (assuming that the £16 billion over four years also becomes a permanent feature, that is). He can do it if he needs to.

I think he would like to use the money to pay down borrowing (he already has an £20b of that £50b committed to paying down the cost of pandemic spending), but the prospect of high inflation (i.e. inflating away the real value of existing borrowing) may give him some room for manoeuvre.

I think we are most likely to get a commitment along the lines of making the "temporary uplift" permanent (so, £4b p.a. which would make spending around 2.05% of GDP) along with a smaller immediate uplift (maybe £3-4b p.a., taking us to around 2.2-2.3%) coupled with a promise to raise spending to 2.5% phased in over time (along the lines of the current "inflation plus 0.5% deal - though he may want to renege on the "inflation" part of that particular deal). That gets the "increase" headlines while pushing most of the actual increased expenditure into future years, when he might have more wriggle-room (or it's somebody else's problem).

I would love to be proved wrong by an immediate lift to 2.5% and a commitment to 3% over (say) the next five years, but I won't hold my breath!
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
wargame_insomniac
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The first thing we need to do is get the Army into its BCT's and divi up the kit we have so working on the rule of thumb at each Battalion needs 100 vehicles we should be looking at

3 x Light BCT's with

1 x Cavalry regt = 85 Jackal & 15 Coyote
2 x Infantry Battalion's = 60 Foxhounds , 30 Mastiff & 20 Panther
1 x Artillery support group
1 x Logistics support group

2 x Heavy BCT's with

1 x Armoured Sqn = CH2
1 x Cavalry = CVR(T)
2 x Infantry = 60 Warrior & 40 Bulldogs
1 x Artillery support
1 x Logistic support

1 x Deep fires BCT with

2 x Cavaly = 1 with Jackal & Coyote & 1 with CVR(T)
2 x Artillery regt = AS-90 & GMRLS
1 x Logistics support group

Is it the best no but we can build on it like building a third Heavy BCT around Boxer and then replace the other 2 to have 3 Heavy BCT's

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Repulse »

I’d say the first thing we need to do is focus on getting the ability to secure the North Atlantic independently from Russia, on the sea, below the sea and in the air. I’m not saying our allies will not help, but Ukraine has highlighted that when there are other (economic or political) interests at play they will at best be slow to react, at worse they won’t react at all. Secure the North Atlantic and you’ve provided base defence to the UK.

That means more subs, ships, aircraft, air defence, BMD and ability to strike ports / facilities that can be used to threaten it.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacScimitar54
”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: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 12:50 I’d say the first thing we need to do is focus on getting the ability to secure the North Atlantic independently from Russia, on the sea, below the sea and in the air. I’m not saying our allies will not help, but Ukraine has highlighted that when there are other (economic or political) interests at play they will at best be slow to react, at worse they won’t react at all. Secure the North Atlantic and you’ve provided base defence to the UK.

That means more subs, ships, aircraft, air defence, BMD and ability to strike ports / facilities that can be used to threaten it.
Securing the North Atlantic is a NATO task not a sole U.K. one. All the countries in NATO on the Atlantic coast have shown up when asked

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Control of the North Atlantic is a key priority for both Europe and the United Stats and Canada. The fact that we will not be operating a Carrier Strike Group as our main naval contribution to achieving this means that other Countries will have to step up to provide additional Escorts. Germany is expanding the number or large vessels it has for example.

Whether we like it or not the Land is where we need to correct decades of underfunding as probably second only to the renewal of our CASD in priority. Almost all our AFV fleet with the exception of the Combat Engineering platforms or the Royal Engineers are no longer really fit for purpose in a Peer or near Peer conflict. The effective systems we have are not available in sufficient numbers to provide the level of coverage we will need, or to have enough attrition reserves or both. Mid you this applies to all three Services, just that the Army is in a far worse state.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 13:15 Securing the North Atlantic is a NATO task not a sole U.K. one. All the countries in NATO on the Atlantic coast have shown up when asked
Yes it should be. The need to secure it however is a vital national interest, and given that other countries have their own interests and priorities, we should prepare to be able to do it ourselves if ever required.

We have already seen increased Russian activity and aggressive behaviour in the North Atlantic over the past few years, and given the criticality to UK defence we should be focusing on tackling this.
”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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 13:33 Control of the North Atlantic is a key priority for both Europe and the United Stats and Canada.
Yes a priority, but for the UK it is the critical one that matters. For almost everyone else, there are other equally and if not more important areas - for the UK it is the moat that has protected us for centuries and the lifeline for supplies.
Lord Jim wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 13:33 Germany is expanding the number or large vessels it has for example.
Germany is increasing the number of Corvettes to control the Baltic - nothing more.
Lord Jim wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 13:33 Whether we like it or not the Land is where we need to correct decades of underfunding as probably second only to the renewal of our CASD in priority. Almost all our AFV fleet with the exception of the Combat Engineering platforms or the Royal Engineers are no longer really fit for purpose in a Peer or near Peer conflict.
Putting aside that the Army has had the money, but have poorly managed it, the reality is that the Army seen through the lens of a BOAR model is outdated. Even if the British Army had twice as many troops it wouldn’t have mattered a jot in Ukraine, and would still be a part player on the continent when compared to what Poland, Germany and France can and should offer. What’s more we are never going to deploy an Armoured Division anywhere outside of Europe again neither.

The IR’s focus on training others has been validated by Ukraine. And whilst limited in strategic effect, it’s smaller more agile and mobile concepts have also been demonstrated to work. What the Army should be focused on is filling the gap the RMs is leaving and making it what we all wanted to the RMs to be, effectively a mini USMC. This of course should be balanced by reserve / seed corn capabilities to defend the UK itself should the need ever arise, given time to prepare by keeping the enemy at bay through control of the North Atlantic Sea (and Skies).
”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

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The navy has what it has and we know what it will be getting if we want the RN to face down the Russians on its own it will need another 10 SSN's this is not going to happen for the Atlantic we need another 8 or so P-8's on top of 2 more type 26's to work with NATO partners.

My thinking above was more about getting the Army into its new BCT's as quick as possible with the kit we have. As soon as it is in its new formations we can start to see what we need to add

Given what we have seen in Ukraine in Terms of Russian kit and how it is used if we have 4 Light BCT's with

1 x Cavalry regt = 80 Jackal & 15 Coyote
2 x Infantry Battalions = 60 Foxhound , 40 Mastiff , 20 Panther fitted with RWS with 12.7 mm , 30mm , 40mm GMG
1 x Artillery support group
1 x Logistic's support group

8 of the Mastiff's could be fitted as SP Mortars plus 10 more could be fitted with Rapid Ranger 5 for Air defence and 5 for anti tank
Mastiff and Panther could be replaced later with Bushmaster

we would be in a good place

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 15:25 The navy has what it has and we know what it will be getting if we want the RN to face down the Russians on its own it will need another 10 SSN's this is not going to happen for the Atlantic we need another 8 or so P-8's on top of 2 more type 26's to work with NATO partners.
There is an argument IMO to build a second SSN factory, and seeing that we will need to go bigger in civilian nuclear power also, additional manufacturing on building reactors also. Sure it will be expensive, but still comparatively cheap compared to other recent expenditure. Buying more P8s is again relatively easy, as is increasing the tempo of the T26 build to squeeze in two more.
Tempest414 wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 15:25 My thinking above was more about getting the Army into its new BCT's as quick as possible with the kit we have. As soon as it is in its new formations we can start to see what we need to add
True, but in addition to the RN I would still prioritise BMD, Air Defence (aircraft and missiles) and Hypersonic weapons before the Army. It’s not picking service favourites, it’s about securing the fence and moat first, and then tackling the rest.
”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: 5656
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 13:41
SW1 wrote: 20 Mar 2022, 13:15 Securing the North Atlantic is a NATO task not a sole U.K. one. All the countries in NATO on the Atlantic coast have shown up when asked
Yes it should be. The need to secure it however is a vital national interest, and given that other countries have their own interests and priorities, we should prepare to be able to do it ourselves if ever required.

We have already seen increased Russian activity and aggressive behaviour in the North Atlantic over the past few years, and given the criticality to UK defence we should be focusing on tackling this.
The RN has 2 carriers 19 escorts 7 ssns a plethora of helicopters and we have maritime patrol aircraft and protector UAVs on the way that are capable to secure sea lanes in the Atlantic should it need to provided that is where the RN prioritises it’s resources.

It would have been considerably more logistical had the RN prioritised the RM with sea control and the asw task but they didn’t they knew better.

Much like the army significant sums spent with little to show for it, there is definitely not a return to BOAR and I would agree multiple armoured divisions would have done little to stop an invasion as we stated we weren’t getting involved. But that is not the point, we have seen Poland request logistical and air defence assets to be deployed and Estonia has requested a battle group plus as reassurance are you suggesting we should of said no ask someone else?

The need to be able to have a land presence to deter and reassure is vital and the reason countries in the east of NATO request UK troops is because in Europe other than France we have a nuclear deterrent and their calculation is if Russia attacks were uk troops are we would respond and so they are therefore protected. Does it need to look like a old armoured division I don’t think it does mainly because the logistics tail to deploy and support it is simply too large now especially in a contested environment.

The upstream engagement does indeed appear validated, the need to accompany however is more questionable. Some of the other things that appear vindicated I would add is the choice of cta 40mm looking a some of the video of the number of rounds of 30mm being fired at ifv, the need for many less rounds of 40mm reducing logistics and the option to have air burst rounds for air defence. Also I’d argue Ukraine shows the need to be to able to design and integrate expendables and key sensors in the UK sourced from UK supply lines on our main platforms is vital to national resilience.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Lord Jim

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

I will again state that the North Atlantic is the Key to NATO being able to respond effectively to Russian aggression against one or more of its members. Without reinforcements form mainly the USA but also Canada, NATO will not have the numbers it needs or the logistics to maintain them.

One thing the IR did in theory was fund the increase in the UKs stores of spares and munitions, and hopefully recent events have increased the priority for this. Germany is increasing the number of large warships, though very slowly on further investigation, and the building now of twelve large Corvettes for use in the Baltic will allow the major units and their auxiliaries to be used elsewhere including the North Atlantic.

Regarding the Army, yes it has wasted money, quite a lot in fact, in the past but that cannot be held against them. No one has suggested a return to BOAR, well those suggesting we buy a new tracked IFV come close but I will leave that there. What we need are properly equipped BCTs of all varieties. With Boxer and Ajax we have two modern and very flexible platforms that we need to make the most of. Current spending falls way short of anything like this and current events should be used to present a strong argument to make the necessary changes and to gain the necessary additional funding. The Treasury may not like it, but we cannot rely on any form or UOR filling any capability holes once things become dangerous. Wit the exceptions of ammunition we will be fighting with what we have, and every war has shown that the consumption of munitions and platforms far exceeds what those making assumption plan for. We might be planning to fight a "Deep" battle and keep the enemy at a distance, but I do not think they will play to the same rules or fight the same senario. We need to plan for the worst if we are survive there or at any lesser level of conflict.
These users liked the author Lord Jim 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 »

I feel compelled to disagree on the topic of tracked IFV, but I can agree on pretty much everything else.

Even being able to deploy a RM LSG and transporting army reinforcements via strategic airlift and/or Point class to Scandinavia and Poland / Baltic States is to reinforce that northern flank and allow the RN / RAF to concentrate on patrol the North Atlantic and Barents Sea.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

If we had the equipment it would be interesting to see a rail transport thru the tunnel to eastern Europe maybe quicker than shipping.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes it would be. I wonder if someone inthe MoD might have picked up on that as well?

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Brilliant! Make it so easy to interdict ……. Perfect sense! :crazy:

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

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

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

If you at the point of assuming the tunnel could be hit your armour ain’t getting there. You don’t need to worry about weapons to destroy tanks take out the HETs and your log trucks and then there all on foot. Wonder what full air and surface force protection looks like for a 1000 miles plus move to Eastern Europe.

Post Reply