British military in ‘major deployment’ to defend Europe

Oligarch toys like superyachts are mobile too. However, not much fun if they get impounded the second they turn up in a glitzy EU resort in Greece, Italy, Spain or the South of France.

Agree a better move would be to deploy QE to Eastern med with full battle group. Therefore able to overfly black sea and provide an air umbrella if needed. A type 45 and River class could be shot up in fairly quick order.
Beware poking the bear. He’s got claws.

Hi Joe thanks for the question my green skin understood
ASW Anti submarine warfare and
ASuW Anti Surface Warfare.

WRT ASW a T26… yes, I know, but, any T23 TAPS asset or equivalent NATO asset.

Sorry, I clearly read your post too fast and conflated your reference to T45 with a surface warfare vessel. You make perfect sense.
I take your point on an ASW platform too. Agreed a T26 would be great, and T23 is plenty competitive at the moment, I’ve heard good things about the French ASW frigates too- Alsace or Lorraine or something?

Thank you Joe!

All of NATO have been complacent with regards to the development of AShM whilst the Russians have continued to invest (BrahMos etc.). The RN has gone with submarines for high end targets / helicopters for corvettes and below with Exocet and then harpoon as back up anti shipping weapons. however lack of subs and proliferation of SAMs should prompt a (very rapid) rethink. NSM / JSM would be a perfect interim weapon; cannister launched on ships and carried by our F35s.

The Italians are spending 400 million + on a stealthy long range version of Teseo that can do land attack as well as anti ship.

Any ship in the Black Sea right now is not there to shoot. But it needs to have the best chance of protecting it’s crew if Russia wants to start a war.

A T45 with a River to pick up survivors is a good start, but I’d rather see all those CAMMs fitted first and a 57mm on top of the hangar. Also another 57mm and a Phalanx on the River instead of the 30mm and the crane.

If it’s offensive action we want to do, then I think Ukraine is a RAF job from Romania/Bulgaria with Typhoon and Meteor.

I’ll bring cake.

But they don’t have the will. Especially with Biden in charge of American forces. Ugh

What Rather than trumpski claiming the Ukraine crisis is a European problem? lol

With Trump just saying in last 48 hours that the troops are going to the wrong border…lol…please stop cherry picking the domestic US agenda.

Not for an intense short war they don’t.

Mark. There are 2 armoured BCTs in the new structure and a deep strike/recce BCT. Not everything is light.
Why do you say we don’t have a standing army – what do you think those 82,000 soldiers in the Regular army are?

76000 actually, 32000 are frontline fighting soldiers. In the 1980s the standing army alone in the BAOR was 50000. You don’t commit your entire brigades and infantry units to combat, you would have nothing in reserve inorder to rest and recuperate if a land offensive was prolonged.

Hi Mark, as I spent 34 years as a regular army officer and a seasoned ‘BAOR warrior’, I am very well aware that you don’t and can’t commit every soldier to combat. My comment was about your claim that we don’t have a standing army. Perhaps we need to define the term – this Wikipedia defitinion is as good as any: A standing army is a permanent, often professional, army. It is composed of full-time soldiers who may be either career soldiers or conscripts. It differs from army reserves,…

Hi Graham, thank you for the summary on a Standing army, Im also a 25 year veteran I was Air Force Aircrew, My point is that the British army although highly trained and highly regarded, no longer does the army have the heavy armour or tracked artillery in the numbers we once had trundling across the great German plains. Under investment in upgrades and poor procurement management has seen to that. Iraq and Afghanistan saw OERs for specialist vehicles and equipment so that the army could do its job safely and effectively.
SDSR set out the future fighting capability of our armed forces and what was expected in the future. A possible land conflict in the Ukraine was never considered in future planning. I’m sure we agree that are armed forces especially the army are in a state of flux.

Hi Mark, It is no surprise that we don’t have 50,000 soldiers in Germany in a force dominated by heavy armour as the Cold War ended in 1991. We will have 2 armoured BCTs under the Future Soldier project but Ajax and artillery in the Recce/Dep Strike brigade. Only 112 CR3 tanks in two deployable tank regiments – and Warrior withers on the vine to be replaced by Boxer. I agree that this is a great deal less capability.
Options for Change did not predict a long counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan, Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2 or the multiple deployments to the Balkans. Defence Reviews rarely forecast future operations well.
I certainly agree that the emphasis for the army from 2003 (Gulf War 2) up to late 2014 (end of Op Herrick) was on UORs and core equipment upgrades took a back seat.
The army is in a mess – and should not be deployed against a peer or near-peer foe in an actual shooting war for many years.

I watched a youtube video on Russian Army myths (yes I know). While they have one year conscripts of limited use, with mummies who would be very upset if they got hurt, the fact is the contract full time soldiers have the non contact principle. i.e. The Russians will use their vast artillery, rockets & tactical ballistic missile to pulverise enemy positions, leaving no one to harm their 18-19 year olds when they later occupy those positions. It is scary how much firepower the Russian Army unit has in comparison to a British Army unit.

The army is in an appalling state right now with the new future soldier structure.
Sometimes I wish we could go back to the original army 2020 structure. At least then we had 3 armoured infantry brigades and 16 AA brigade in the reaction force and two to three deployable infantry brigades in the adaption force. That’s almost double the size of deployable brigades than now.

Yes spot on. 6 Brigades plus 3 Cdo.

They COULD have made Strike brigades out of those 2 Infantry Brigades in the Adaptable Force.
Interim Bdes with Foxhounds, then Boxer.

But they had to make cuts so our Armoured Bdes got hit again and the CS/CSS in those adaptable force bdes got removed.

Got to keep those infantry cap badges!!

The obsession over cap badges is ruining the army. At least five infantry battalions should immediately be converted to logistics or artillery and REME and RLC should be merged.

Bravo! I’ve been calling for this for years!

Convert them to RA regiments.

1 x Reg with Brimstone / Spike NLOS type on armoured vehicle to finally give a Striker/Swingfire capability lost. This could be a RAC or a RA Reg. I recall the role was RA earlier before they became integral to RAC Regs.
1x Reg of more GMLRS or lighter equivalent.
1x Reg of AA for SHORAD vs UAV
1x Reg of additional ER CAMM for AD.
1x Reg of ISTAR ala 5 RA, whose assets are limited and in much demand.

The difficulties of that regards retraining and so forth I don’t know. I guess redoing all of phase 2, transferring out those to prefer to remain infantry and recruiting more to fill the required headcount?

We also need additional CSS to support other “BCT” that have next to none or none, but the RA and the AAC should be priority and firepower the order of the day.

That would be amazing the only other thing is I would maybe suggest making brimstone boxers integral to infantry battalions in the anti tank platoon or maybe a whole new platoon. This would free up another regiment for close support given we have just lost 3 RHA to fire support. As to the SHORAD issue I think a vehicle with 35mm cannon and maybe four starstreak/LMM could fulfil this new regiment and 12 regiment could both be armed with this. The only issue with this is to find an airmobile vehicle that can carry a 35mm turret for the airborne, perhaps towed?

Yeah good points. Brimstone into the RAC Recc Regs would work, they lost their integral AT Platoons ages ago.

Current army doctrine seems to be that enemy armour is engaged by Javelin teams on foot, with the teams dropped off by Spartan, or in the LI Btns I read the kit is carried on quad bike with the poor sods in the AT Platoon running alongside!!!!

Most other nations seem happy to arm their vehicles with ATGM. Why does the British Army do it differently? Sane doctrine or are they actually demented?

I think a good place to start off is all boxers in sabre companies to be armed with a javelin launcher. Furthermore each regiment/ battalion should have a platoon of 8 boxers armed with brimstone/spike. In light brigades they should definitely add javelin to foxhound

Dare I mention again that we have still not got a replacement for STRIKER? As you recall it had 10 Swingfire – 5 on the roof and 5 reloads inside that could spoil the day of an enemy tank 4,000m away.
A replacement STRIKER vehicle could actually do Strike!

What advantage is there in merging REME and RLC – they do totally different things – however this was looked at over 20 years ago and it was concluded that it created an unwieldy large Corps of 25% of the army’s strength and to no significant advantage.

You may be right just most if not all other armies do this and what is the point in having two CSS battalions per brigade. We are short enough on CSS as it is if we merged the two then at least 4 LBCT could have regular CSS and maybe 1 DRSBCT could also get one.

You may as well merge a tank regiment with an infantry battalion – they are also dissimilar.
Merging a REME (or ES) bn with a Log Bn just means you have got one huge CSS battalion – you would save a few Bn HQ posts – but create an unwieldy double-size unit. You don’t create headroom to generate CSS capability that can be deployed to 4 LBCT or 1 DRSBCT.

Spot on as ever Daniele….

I only hope this situation is a wake up call and the government finally wakes up and smells the bloody coffee!!

I mean the whole point of a US BCT is too make them more deployable with integral CS/CSS and British BCTs are way too large. US ones have 3 or four battalions, yet ours have 7 or 8. Ultimately we should definitely make reserve brigades similar to the US national guard. Given we have 3 reserve close support artillery and 2 reserve close support engineer regiments along with 1 of tanks, 3 of recce and multiple REME, RLC and signals we could easily create 2 to 3 reserve BCTs and keep the regular ones more streamlined. Ultimately whilst the deep recce strike BCT isn’t a BCT I don’t oppose the idea, but the AS90 regiments should definitely be removed and placed in their respective BCTs

Nor do I, and if it is resourced properly it could work. They spin it as new, but it existed in Ok Granby in 91 and is just 1 Art Bde spun as a deployable BCT.

Totally agree about the AS90s.

Irony is pre 2010 all our armoured and mechanized brigades all had their attendant RLC Reg, RA Reg, RE Reg, REME Btn, and RS Bde Sig Sqn.

It was 2010 that split them up into pointless admin groups.

All BCT should be fully resourced with CS CSS.

I know yet pre 2010 we had what I think 5 armoured/mech brigades plus 19 light brigade and 16 AA brigade. All of them had RA and there were two SHORAD regiments. It’s a shame really because there was no need to reduce our armed forces in the 21st century by so much. The US didn’t even reduce theirs at all. To be honest the only issue I would’ve had with the army pre 2010 structure, other than too little light forces, is there only being one rapier regiment and one regular MLRS regiment.

Correct. 4th, 7th, 20th Armoured Bdes in BAOR, and 1st, 12th, 19th Mech Bdes in 3 Div in UK.

They started fiddling with things early to mid 2000s first by making 19th Mech a light Bde, equals cuts to armour, artillery.

Then moved to BAOR and made 4th armoured into 4th Mechanized, before bringing it back to the UK. That meant more cuts to armour, as the 3 mech bdes all had tank sqns reduced and replaced by Scimitars.

Finally, 19th Light Bde was disbanded.

People forget the cuts made pre 2010, then the Tories stabbed the dagger in, which added 7th Armoured and 4th Mrchanized Bde to the pyre, leaving the 2010 set up of 3 Armoured Infantry Bdes that we’ve covered already.

The 2nd Rapier reg was 22RA and got cut because it had tracked rapier that was not replaced by FSC.

7 or 8 battalions in a British BCT – really? Totally crazy. An old style division had about that number.

Exactly I think 3 division will have 5 active recce regiments, 5 active infantry battalions, 2 active tank regiments, 5 reserve infantry battalions, a reserve tank regiment and a reserve light recce regiment.

5 recce regiments in one division. Are you sure? That is mad.

I’m pretty sure as there there is an Ajax regiment in each ABCT and the DRSBCT has two Ajax regiments, one jackal regiment and one reserve jackal regiment.

An entire recce regiment in a brigade (BCT) is very generous when the army is so small. However clearly they will use these Ajax vehicles in a strike role as well as a recce role.
Someone (Daniele maybe) told me a while back that Ajax will be task org’d with infantry battalions, 2 or 3 vehs to an Inf Platoon. That can only mean that we will be buying Infantry Boxers without a cannon.
These Future Soldier structures are totally ridiculous and must have been designed by very inexperienced young staff officers without sign-off from a senior officer.

You’re correct L.

Thanks Danielle. You have invested more time than I on the details and you are so well informed. I wish we had a MoD definition of ‘Strike’ – this is a term that historically was applied ony to tanks but it has a different and broader meaning now, but what is it? It is clearly a term that describes offensive rather than defensive action – I had to invent my own definition because I could not find a MoD one.

I think it a pity that we have downgraded the term ‘Special Forces’ merely to keep in line with the Americans – they apply a tier terminology to SOF (as they call what we have always called SF) – but we have not (yet) adopted the tier terminology. Our earlier use of SF was very clear – units under the command of DSF, originally SAS and SBS and supporting arms, and later SRR etc.

Seeems crazy for Deep Recce/Strike BCT to have no infantry – infantry are required to protect/support the other arms especially armour that is vulnerable to anti-tank fire, especially from the flanks – and to seize ground (if that is part of ‘strike’).

I really don’t recall that an entire RLC Log Regt was assigned to support a bde in BAOR days – such a unit was Div Tps. I think they chopped a CS Sqn to a bde. REME chopped a FRG to provide recovery and forward second line support to the key AFVs in an armd/AI bde – and the remainder of a CS wksp coy from a REME battalion to support the rest of the bde.

So this deep recce/strike BCT is really a DAG – that has quite a different meaning to a BAOR veteran – and invokes a mass of very large calibre indirect fire artillery and MLRS. A bit messy to add in a load of Ajax, as they only do short range direct fire with a light calibre (40mm). They will therefore be doing a very hybrid job of a close-in battle and simultaneously a depth battle.

I had not realised that CS/CSS for 4 and 7 BCT is to come from the Reserve Army. Why? Has SDSR2021 cut huge numbers of regular CS/CSS? Didn’t you also once say that there is no CS/CSS at all for some other BCTs?

A BCT has no utility in always farming out its manouevre units to do somethng on their own, thus each being tactically unsupported by the other components of the brigade.

Morning Graham. Cheers.

A few points, corrections to add.

“I had to invent my own definition because I could not find a MoD one.”

Nor could many of us!! I think it was just a fancy name cooked up that would grab headlines for the idiot David Cameron.
How do you “Strike” in virtually un armed Boxers who’s firepower is divorced from them on Ajax, with light Guns as your RA firepower?
The army has run experimentation exercises at SPTA on how this was to work but of course I’m not privy to any details.

“I think it a pity that we have downgraded the term ‘Special Forces’ merely to keep in line with the Americans”

Politics! Grabs headlines! I have seen the Tier system in increasing use in the literature. Agreed. Units of the UKSFG or DSF are the only ones that should be anywhere near the term SF. They are special for a reason, which is why I oppose their unit sizes being expanded to far, though I do think creating the SRR, 18 SR and JSFAW were excellent ideas and have greatly improved the capabilities of the group.

“I really don’t recall that an entire RLC Log Regt was assigned to support a bde in BAOR days”

Correct, they were at Divisional level, with Brigade CS Sqns. I was referring to RLC CS Regiments in our brigades post Cold War up to 2010. The RLC Regiment that was with the DAG in BAOR times was I think from Corps Troops but I don’t remember for sure without checking my old books now.

“So this deep recce/strike BCT is really a DAG”

Absolutely! It is 1st Artillery Bde, an administrative not operational formation, given BCT status to increase their number to the typical uninformed civvy who might be bothered to look! A DAG was also used in the Gulf as well as in BAOR so it is not ground breaking, in the Gulf one of the RAC CVRT regs supported it, forget which one.

“I had not realised that CS/CSS for 4 and 7 BCT is to come from the Reserve Army.”

7 LM BCT does have a full set of regular CS/CSS, it is the 4 BCT that does not and is reservist.

“Why? Has SDSR2021 cut huge numbers of regular CS/CSS?

No, but all the other reviews have! That is why I keep banging on about it! Although in this review if anyone can find the fate of 3 CSR RLC I’d like to know, they vanish from the armies stated future soldier orbat.

“Didn’t you also once say that there is no CS/CSS at all for some other BCTs?”

Yes, the planned 4 BCT. Reservists only.
And in the previous ( post 2010 ) 1 (UK) Div structure of 7 Infantry Brigades, only 2 had CS and CSS, the 2 brigades of the 7 which in theory were deployable.

Lack of CS/CSS is made worse by having so many infantry battalions that the army are desperate to save resulting in infantry “brigades” that are golf bags, they cannot deploy as self contained formations as the supports don’t exist for them, or if they do they are elsewhere in the army, like with the ARRC.

At present only 12, 20, 16 and 7 BCT are truly BCT.

1 Aviation BCT, 4 BCT, DRSBCT are given the BCT tag but lag the enablers to be fully considered such. The other deployable brigade we had was 3 Cdo but as covered many times that has been dismembered and has even fewer enablers than the likes of 16AA. It will now operate in dispersed groups.

Hi Daniele, A great set of points which have helped my knowledge – I am very rusty having left the army in 2009 and only having glanced at the Defence press since. There is so much wrong with the Future Soldier structure (if that is the correct term), that it is probably unworkable. The continual rehashing of the field force stucture in recent years has been baffling.
The army will really come unstuck if it came up against a peer or near-peer foe in any appreciable strength or had to respond simultaneously to multiple threats from multiple directions. It woud be interesting to see certain scenarios wargamed by OA professionals.

Pleasure.

Yes, one of the biggest issues is that the army has effectively been in an ongoing reorganisation since FAS around 2005 timeframe.
And one reviews list of cuts and changes are not even fully implemented before another arrives!

You can’t win conflicts with just a navy our army is the worst it’s been in history out of date gear only do fitness when they feel like it discipline is crap and numbers are way to low

I am glad you accept we have a good navy.

Are you serving or retired Reg army or a Reserve?

Totally agree that most kit is out of date.

I had not heard that army fitness training is now voluntary – I am surprised and disappointed. Do you have a reference or link?

Numbers are certainly too low – reg numbers reduced to 120,000 at end of Cold War – only reason they have been cut multiple times further since 1991 is to save money – no military justification. We should have 120,000 regulars and well over 30,000 Reserve army.

The Royal navy is the best in the world no one comes close.. But unfortunately not the bigest like the rest of our arm forces top quality but so little of them SAD

In 10 years time RN has the potential to be a true L2 Bluewater navy with teeth. Today it is not. Too many capability gaps and too many single point of failure exposures.

CSG with no ‘strike’ capability other than Tomahawk on Astutes. Need bk4 software to facilitate the Strike on F35 and no surface launched strike capability against peers.

RN / CSG reliant on a single dry replenishment ship

Strong anti submarine capability is a positive but would be stronger with UK torpedoes on P8, dipping sonar and data links on Wildcat and decent bow sonar on Type32

No anti ballistic missile defence capability.

No effective AEW for peer operations

A doctrine of arming ships that appears to rely on johnny foreigner to do the descent thing and only send threats against ships that those ships have a particular ability to deal with.

Astures are outstanding but too few.

Sea Ceptor is great but could do with some ER versions in load-out

In the next 24-36 months there are interim solutions that could be implemented pending the 10 year plan that would be multipliers.

Yes, a good summery IMO.

Thanks Pete – very much the other side of a coin you might first think is shiny and new.

indeed Graham. Hopefully, if nothing else, the Govt will follow through on its promises to invest in the armed forces and can get its procurement sorted out. I think Type 31 is a great proof of concept project for identify its purpose, generically and functionally spec it, invite offers (with optional kit etc), contract your choice and let it deliver without constant re-thinks and amendments to scope). Get the Type 31 Procurement model rolled out to Army for armour and Artillery etc and the wastage should start to diminish.

Thanks Pete. I don’t see much wrong with procurement on naval equipment. Capability gaps exist but the money and the procurement process seems to work for the RN.
Problem is with getting modern Land equipment for the army. I hear that £5bn of FRES money (probably all of it) went to CV(F) but there is much else to uncover about why land vehicles procurement has gone wrong.
We could not deploy credible and survivable brigade(s) against a peer or near-peer opponent at present.

Neither us or the US were invited. The talks in Paris are a continuation of the original talk structure of the Minsk Protocol, and is called the Normandy Four, who are France, Gernany, Russia and Ukraine. The talks are concentrating on how to make the unwilling Ukraine (due to serious and militant right wing pressure based around Azov) implement the said Protocal. The biggest pressure coming from Makron, who faces an election in April and would really like to go into it as Mr Peace.

What has France and Germany got to do with this dispute? They are set back a way from the area of tension. Who nominated them to speak for the whole of western Europe? The EU? Or themselves? By setting themselves up as talkers, means they don’t have to be identified as military doers – so far they have sent no kit to aid Ukraine.
Macron is untrustworthy and the German Chanceller is new and inexperienced.
Not going to end well.

You have heard of the Normandy Four and the Minsk Protocols?

Yes. Does not change my view as to the wisdom or rightness of France and Germany speaking for the whole of Western Europe.

They were involved back in 2014 as major countries that, along with Russia, could get Ukraine to negotiations and an agreement. No indication then they saw themselves as speaking for Europe and I’m sure that that is how they view themselves now.

Macron is dreadful. He is only there for appearance sakes.

Germany and France seem to prefer talking to Russia to supporting Ukraine in a practical way.

Agreed, just not sure which is the right solution. We know NATO isn’t going to do anything serious to protect Ukraine and the UK has ruled out sending troops. Is talking and trying to find a solution more effective than sending a token force and a few anti tank missiles. I suspect talks have a better chance of success, but we will never really know as details of any deals the EU/US do with Russia will be kept secret and so never know if the talks achieved anything or not.

The serious talks started in Paris last week with another meeting next week. Neither we or the US are directly involved.

Not something that would be without considerable risk to the tankers in contested airspace.

Indeed. Was wondering if the USN refuelling drones intended for carrier ops could actually be pushed fwd to work from land based airfields. Smaller fuel volumes but slightly stealthy and lower risk if picked up by johnny foreigner. Can’t imagine NATO aircraft over Ukraine but can readily see F35’s working well fwd in Romanian airspace keeping an eye on things.

I would agree if only we had enough of them, something for the future at best at the moment, unfortunately.

There or off Norway I would guess. Although not entirely sure what that actually has to offer NATO! Both locations are too far removed to impact anything, and we simply don’t have the air assets to mount a meaningful response so soon after completing CSG21.
The situation will improve over time, but that’s years not months.
Just shows how limited our military options actually are….

Just looked at a map and you are right – eastern Med is too far away. So options for carriers are limited. But not so for army and RAF.

I see no difference between our involvement in defending S Korea back in 1950 & defending Taiwan against the PRC trying to invade. We shouldn’t let the PRC dictate terms any more than Putin in Ukraine. Taiwan is a prosperous, productive, democratic nation. PRC has form swallowing up nations & for a state that decries our long past imperialism, should not be allowed to engage in neo-imperialism of its own or to subject the world to its dystopian autocratic one party order.

Frank, I see quite a few differences betwen the situation in 1950 and 2022. In 1950 we still had an Empire (albeit diminishing) in SE Asia and had to defend our colonies who were not far from ‘the Red menace’, the US was on anti-Communist crusade and implored the British Commonwealth to join in, and we had huge armed forces to deploy.

It would be a bad day if China invaded and annexed Taiwan, but is not something that affects Europe. Let the RN continue to sail CSGs in and around the South China Sea (FON exercises) – that’s about all we can do to deter – unless AUKUS has any other ideas.

It would make the computer chip situation go critical in weeks. Taiwan is a major manufacturer.

I hope so. I am sure I remember an American Admiral in the Pacific last summer commenting that he didn’t need the QE task force there, it got in his way and that it should really stay in the Atlantic where it had a real role to play. We will see.

I am staggered and can’t believe this could be true – do you have a reference? US was very supportive of CSG21 and committed a destroyer (USS The Sullivans) to it.

AUKUS is all about those countries committing forces to the Indo-Pacific region to curb China amongst other things. Strong UK comittment should be welcomed by every thinking American and Australian officer.

How could CSG21 get in his way? Was he in USPACFLT? Surely naval CSGs and US fleets can do seaspace control? The Pacific and SCS are big places – room enough for all allies.

What role would CSG21 have in the Atlantic? Where is the threat there?

I was rather surprised at the time but I’m pretty sure I didn’t copy it at the time, I will look. I’m pretty sure that it was a comment by the Admiral in command of USN in the Pacific in the context of there being a carrier group sailing in his area of responsibility, on his side but not under his direct control, that might do something that he didn’t want or the reverse. I think he saw it as a NATO asset in the Atlantic, looking after the Russians.

He sounds very arrogant. It is not the sole preserve of the USN to ‘police’ the Pacific. AUKUS is all about UK and Australia sharing the burden with the US – perhaps this Admiral needs to learn about politics, AUKUS and working with Allies. It sounds like he is grossly over-promoted.

I assume its down to the USN regarding the Pacific as their ‘lake’ so to speak and that any major military assets in it should defer to them and a concern that the RN may be a bit too independent.

Or how the British Pacific fleet joined the USN to bomb & shell Japan in 1945.

…and many of the islands held by Japanese troops in occupation.

Sounds like USN Admiral King talking in WW2. He tried to freeze out the British Pacific Fleet but some subordinates came close to undermining him.

This was an Admiral speaking whilst the carrier group was still there last summer.

I think the Chinese have the biggest Int operation at the moment and they’re not in an alliance… just saying like.

Yes, no doubt huge. Depends on how you measure. And I think you include IP stealing. I was thinking purely of exchanges of data, joint procedures, and scale and number of collection sites, be they FORNSAT, SIGINT, ELINT, radio, cables, internet, metadata and so on.

Ours started with the UKUSA agreement in 1946 and has spanned continents ever since. They are playing catch up, and where are their world wide spread of collection sites? I don’t think China has a comparable network yet, if ever.

Thanks that’s actually hugely appreciated. Again, apologies if this is a stupid question but if we’re getting 18 batteries of Sky Sabre, where do the others go to considering 16 Reg RA has only 5 batteries? Or it’s 18 sets to fill those batteries? If so how many launch vehicles and ready missiles would a battery usually have? E.g is it just one radar vehicle, one control vehicle and one launcher vehicle or there would be multiple launchers to a single battery?

I have heard from other posters it “may” be only 18 launchers. Not 18 Batteries!

On “Systems” that is launcher, radar, I’m unsure. It might be as few as 4 if the 18 is correct as then you’d have 16 in use and 2 spares for training at Larkhill with 14RA.

Hopefully it is more.

Not a troll question at all; see other better informed responses as to why.