The E-7 Wedgetail aircraft is an advanced radar station and flying command centre; it will be the eyes in the sky for Britain with an unparalleled ability to track both hostile and friendly aircraft, missiles, and other potentially hostile craft; the problem is that there will be too few, and they’ll arrive too late.
The retirement of the RAF’s seven-strong fleet of E-3 Sentry planes in 2021 marked the end of an era in British air combat capability and the beginning of a transition towards the more advanced, but fewer, E-7 Wedgetail manufactured by Boeing.
However, this transition has been anything but smooth.
The first of three E-7 Wedgetail aircraft was due to be delivered by the end of last year under a Ā£ 1.9 billion contract signed in 2018. However, delivery has been delayed until the second half of 2024. A delay that has raised concerns among MPs and defence analysts alike.
The RAF’s transition to the advanced E-7 Wedgetail aircraft has been significantly hampered by delays attributed to aerospace manufacturer Boeing. Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton’s rather revealing testimony before the Defence Select Committee served to highlight the airborne early warning capability gap foisted upon the British armed forces. Despite concerted efforts to expedite delivery, challenges ranging from Boeing’s internal issues to the complexities of managing subcontractors and certification processes have contributed to a rather unwelcome delay in getting the new aircraft into service. As Knighton confirmed, “Boeing took on a contract to deliver a capability in a timescale that it has been unable to do it in”.Ā
Delays are one of many problems; even when delivered, there will likely be too few aircraft. The decision to trim the E-7 fleet from the initially planned five to just three has sparked concern in the upper echelons of defence, a sentiment echoed by retired Royal Navy officer Dan Stembridge, who highlighted the inadequacy of three aircraft to “deliver effect in two places at once.”Ā
This reduction stretches an already thin force and raises significant questions about the UK’s commitment to maintaining a combat-effective fleet. Recent deliberations in the Defence Committee have further brought to light these concerns as Mark Francois MP underscored the potential vulnerabilities of the RAF’s current setup, asking RAF chief Knighton, “That is simply not enough, is it?”.
The strategic importance of maintaining a robust AEW&C capability has been highlighted by the operational shifts in Russia’s deployments of its A-50 Mainstay airborne early warning aircraft fleet following a recent loss of just one in the Ukraine war. The A-50’s crucial role in Russian operations accentuates the undeniable significance of such assets, even with a fleet much larger than the UKās planned three aircraft, the Russian armed forces are finding it difficult to coordinate deployments to āplug the gapsā. In this context, the RAF’s decision to reduce its fleet seems even more incongruous, especially considering the UK government remains contractually bound to pay for the radars initially ordered for five aircraft.
In the words of Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, āOur ability to see and understand what is happening in the air domain is fundamental to our ability to direct our forces and our assets and protect our country.ā This statement resonates now more than ever. If we are committed to building the radars, it is logical and strategically sound to complete the fleet.
As Knighton himself emphasised, āAt a future date, in a future review, it is something that I hope we would come back to,ā alluding to the RAF’s desire for a more extensive E-7 fleet. As initially suggested, aiming for six or seven aircraft to ensure capabilities in both east and west might be nearer the mark.Ā
The Governmentās decision to cut the E-7 fleet makes no strategic sense and is, in my view, penny pinching pure and simple. As Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, recently pointed out, “it is hard to think of a time when there has been so much danger and insecurity and instability in the world”, it is clear that a robust fleet of E-7 Wedgetails is not a luxury but a necessity.Ā
The time for Government to act is now. They must take a long-sighted approach to defence planning, ensuring that the RAF remains a formidable force, fully equipped to protect the UK and its allies in an increasingly unpredictable global landscape. Cutting the Wedgetail fleet is a strategic miscalculation that must be rectified for national and international security.
Luckily there isn’t a need to monitor enemy aircraft over Ukraine or drones in the middle east ,and that it’s peace in our time.
Russia has learnt the hard way that losing even one of the 10 or so air based radars is a huge loss. 3 is just not realistic in a war situation, at best you would keep one up and that assumes no major issues with any of them or any losses. Vert much like having 1 solid supply ship.
It feels like all areas of capability is designed around the assumption that everything is alright on the night and no losses occur and any war is very short term.
Not to mention that with only 3 hulls, they will be worked hard and so their availability will drop fast resulting in false economy. Especially considering the radars for the other 2 were already purchased.
Yeah, looks a bit strange. A fleet of 5 is not really serious either. I donāt get it. UK seems to be disengaged on this topic.
I wouldn’t even bother commenting. This is 1936 ,Chamberlain is PM ……….And NOBODY IS LISTENING .
Itās worse than that Baldwin started the rearmament in 1936, Chamberlain increased it and delayed the war long enough for it to do just enough.
This time itās 1941 and nobody listened earlier.
That’s a good point . Baldwin had slipped my mind ,thanks. I’m just amazed at the utter lack of enthusiasm by even our top ranking officers . Oh I know some have voiced discontentment, but most are passive collaborators in this governments weakness. Cameron being back is very bad news He ranks alongside Blair for disarmament and betrayal. Betrayal is tattooed on our brains as ex Parachute Regiment.
We are struggling in every aspect of our defence capabilities. Early retirement of still very capable defence assets seems to to be a religion to our government. Penny pinching is the only way to describe this behavior. How frustrated must the US be with us. We’re almost like leeches. Embarrassing for a nation with ‘global aspirations’.
I don’t think the US cares either way. They just need an ally that will back them no matter what, and so they are not perceived to be going it alone. Which politically is an issue for them, as they want to be perceived to be the morale compass which they will struggle to sell, if no other country fights with them.
The US does care. You are living in a false reality if you don’t think that the UK’s inability to provide meaningful assistance in the Red Sea area isn’t dovetailing with America’s simmering frustration with NATO and its defense parasites. The US military is pivoting towards the Pacific and an increasingly dangerous China. The 48th Fighter Wing at Lakenheath houses four of the best fighter squadrons in the USAF, a thousand miles from the Russian front. Many Americans think they could be better utilized in the Pacific. Times have changed. Rather than foaming at the mouth at Trump, British politicians would be better off paying attention to the fact that Trump’s popularity has much more to do with his positions than his turbulent personality. And one of these is frustration with NATO. Trump’s affection for the UK was because of his mother’s love of the Queen. I doubt Trump has the same respect for Charles III. You may not like Trump but he is reality.
Really don’t agree. The US could easily fill the gap created by 1 destroyer and a handful of bombing runs (vs the hundreds they have done) we have contributed. As you say their focus is on Asia and not Europe and so we are now old news to them. We are however a puppet military that joins them in a conflicts, it’s just the US could easily fill the gap caused by us not being there with their military capability, they just like us help justify things politically.
For the red sea my bigger question is where is China. Huge amounts of their trade goes through the area and they are trying to look big on the world scene and yet absent.
China have around six major warships in the areaā¦why are they not involved..conveniently itās not ships heading to or from china that are being targetedā¦why..the Houthi are a proxy of Iran and Iran is if not a formal ally of china itās a nation that is closely alignedā¦you donāt think Iran had that ability to develop anti ship ballistic missiles do you ? they had a phone a friend option.
Also china is very clever in how it plays its deployments..itās got a huge blue water navy nowā¦but it rarely deploys more than a handful of surface combatantsā¦( when it has a lot of 40,000 ton amphibious docks and helicopter docks as well as support ships)ā¦I honestly think itās being very careful to only play in its own pond so as to seem a lesser threatā¦after all china could easily make a freedom of navigation point and sail an entire amphibious group up the channel with more escorts that the RN hasā¦but it does notā¦anyone who thinks it cannot is a bit delusional as last year it sent a CBG on a 10,000mile round trip a round the western pacific..while at the same time maintaining 6 surface vessels in the gulf region.. this not appearing with large numbers or groups in other peoples ponds is purposefulā¦it sends a message in itself..which is part of its political warfare against the U.S.
Think we’d need to get Egypt to shut the canal but then the West would have to cough up their losses. Chinese and Asian traffic would then also incur the additional costs of going round the Horn.
The USA cares most about having a UN permanent security council member being in coalition with things they do more than what the forces bring to the fight. The USA is seen as the big bad bully in a lot of the world. Having an ally or several so it can be announced itās a coalition rather than just the USA is very important to them.
The U.K. does bring a lot behind the scenes with intelligence, secret services etc. these also matter a lot. The forces also still pack a big punch that is equal or better than most in the world.
Thatās my view point on it anyway from what Iāve gathered
Agreed. The UK still adds something when helping the US, but realistically they could do it without if needed. The whole coalition of the willing is such a buzz word in US politics and makes it hard for the opposition to kick up a fuss when the US is working with allies.
What the UK gets out of it, is highly questionable. No one has really ever explained what the special relationship actually means for the UK.
A special fist pumping.
I no longer feel the UK warrants a position on the permanent security council. We are a mid ranking non entity in almost every respect. Perhaps itās time India took our seat and France gives hers to the EU?
We do warrant is as we are one of the few nations that can intervene across the globe and also has the ability to destroy any other nationā¦if you look at the five security council permanent seats there is one thing in commonā¦strategic nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them anywhere on the planetā¦as such there is no other qualified nation to take over our seatā¦for all our issues we are still one of the most powerful nations on earth by all measures that matterā¦
in the end the whole point of the UN Security Council is to make sure one of the big five donāt get pushed into triggering nuclear Armageddon.
It says a lot about our species that the qualification to be moral arbiter of the earth is such a disgusting ability. Economic and political sway coupled to accountable justice systems should rank as high when deciding such matters. Look how the USAs bestest buddy can get away with dressing as medics and nurses to murder people in a hospital with no sanction.
The world is as the world is, no nation is moral..in fact itās fair to say every nation is amoral, therefore the only arbiter in the end is power. Always has been, always will beā¦the most powerful nations decide what is āRight and what is wrongā..humans are generally moral beings, the institutions and political bodies we create are not..
Those guys were part of a designated terrorist organisation. Now it does look bad on camera but the targets were eliminated without causing other innocent casualties which is good.
The fact those 3 people have and would continue to kill and injure innocent people on all sides seems to get lost in the outrage. If taking out 3 people saves the lives of multiple more innocents then thatās a good thing.
The 3 guys could at any point of given up being part of a terrorist group and gone about a normal life like most other people.
Special forces often use disguises to accomplish missions. If they werenāt used and uniformed troops had to capture those 3, the casualty list would have been far higher.
I would love nothing more than everyone to stop fighting and live peacefully. I can do it but some choose not too.
Oh that sounds just right in the UK’s interest we should get right on either it immediately.
Iām a nationalist and love my nation and our brothers in these isles. I just wish we would stop the ridiculous charade that we are some global player. It puts us all in danger that is unnecessary. The world does not need or want our intervention. Can we not step back and just concentrate on being the best we can be for a while? If you want to go all in and start fighting for land to colonise, fair game, Iām in. But these endless moralistic interventions have to stop. We donāt have the means or the right to impose our way of life on others.
I would like to see India taking a bigger role on the world stage. Unfortunately they donāt put what is best for the world community above what they wish for themselves.
To be at the top a country should have checks and laws that prevent those in power from abusing that power. The country has to take on a role of patrolling the oceans and protecting the global systems of laws, trade etc even when they cause issues with their own country.
India would have to resolve its differences with Pakistan and set about working together and achieving permanent peace.
Now Iām not saying the 5 permanent members are perfect. Unfortunately at the end of WW2 itās how it was set up.
Perhaps India and a few other countries could have more of the rotating seats allotted to them more often.
Have a look at India’s role as sanction evasion enablers for the ruzzian terrorist state invaders of Ukraine.
India was delighted to get cheap oil and gas paying no attention to the geopolitical impact of enabling the terrorist state to commit war and war crimes against the sovereign democratic nation of Ukraine.
That’s definitely proof of being unfit for security council membership. That membership would be seen as a status boost and not as the responsibility that it is. Unfit.
EU wants Red Sea naval mission in less than three weeks
“The European Union wants to establish and deploy its own naval mission to the Red Sea within weeks to help combat Houthi attacks in the area, the bloc’s foreign policy chief has said.
Josep Borrell said a lead nation would be picked today and hopes for an outline on where the mission would be headquartered, who would participate and with what assets.
“Not all member states will be willing to participate but no one will obstruct,” he said, adding he hoped the mission could be launched on 17 February.
France, Greece and Italy have shown interest in leading the mission, with seven countries so far indicating they would be willing to send naval assets, diplomats said.
Mr Borrell said the EU operation would be named Aspides – meaning protector – and have a mandate to protect commercial shipping and intercept attacks, but not take part in strikes against the Houthis.
The US and UK have both conducted strikes on Houthi-held parts of Yemen, with Washington having formed its own taskforce at the end of last year.”
@SKYNEWS
The EU is starting to realise that the US is not going to be there all the time for them, and that their interests don’t always aligned. As such they are realising they need their own foreign policy and miltiary approach.
Even more important, and the reason why I keep mentioning on here that we need to start thinking of looking at ways to defend UK Sovereign territory (Increased Missile Defence) rather than solely relying upon NATO to come to our aid.
Forget travelling the seven seas for now and concentrate on home defence.
āNot all member states will be willing to participate but no one will obstruct,ā
Absolutely GBMD very badly needed , and When asked about our forces short falls HMG always say our NATO members will fill the gap ,I personally wouldn’t relied on this. š¤
Dither and delay springs to mind and it wouldn’t be the first time either!
We have the type 45s that will be. Able to provide air defence. Actually as they are mobile the can be positioned at the most advantageous spot for intercepts.
If we assume we are defending against attack from Russia the missiles will come from kalingrad, Russian mainland or the few subs/ships they have. The subs and ships will be sunk quickly in a conflict.
Now if itās to protect some location abroad then itās unlikely the U.K. will be going in solo. The ships provide defence, British army will have CAAM and allies will have air defence bubbles.
It all comes down to cost. I we assume Ā£5+ billion to get a system up and running and 0.5-1 billion annual running/upgrade costs.
NATO would come to our aid if we are attacked. But it is still prudent to have adequate defences.
I wonder which ones would and what the timeline would be before they intervened.
All NATO nations came to the aid of the US after 9/11, and pretty much instantly, except Iceland as it doesn’t have an army!
I am a bit shocked at the thought that some NATO nations might disregard a situation where we had been attacked. NATO, a mutual defence organisation would be rather pointless if that was the case.
Nato has got bigger and it then becomes harder to all agree on anything.
Perhaps 2 tiers would be useful.
Really nato is to deter any country within it getting invaded. That seems to work well for last 70 years. The only country that could have invaded would have been Soviet Union and now Russia. No other conflict would require the full might of nato together.
So what to do with countries that expect help but donāt want to provide help to others? Perhaps only some of nato benefits given to them. Like no sharing nato assets. No access to intel, no joint exercises outside their own country, higher rate of GDP on defence? Just some ideas
Not sure there are too many examples of NATO finding it hard to agree on things due to it having 31 members – what examples do you have? Granted that there was perceived to be some slowness in getting Finland signed up due to Turkey’s early objections and Hungary has been slow to ratify Sweden’s accession. However – in big picture terms Finland’s joining process has been far faster than it used to take.
I can’t see that 2 tiers would help.
NATO has been superbly successful as you say – and has outlasted the Warsaw Pact.
Who are these countries that expect help but don’t want to help others? Why would they refuse to help? NATO is a mutual aid military organisation. Article 5 requires member countries to come to the aid of an attacked country (that doesn’t necessarily mean sending every last man into combat of course). As stated before all NATO countries (except Iceland who has no army) came to the aid of the US on the only occasion that Article 5 has been called since 1949, so where is the evidence that some countries would not?
NATO is ‘all for one, one for all’ – always has been, always will be. Two tiers makes no sense to me.
NATO does require some changes. It should clearly declare that the 2% is a floor not a ceiling. It might revise its view on its Area of Operations, so as to face the China threat and open its membership to Far East westernised countries – if a name change for the organisation were required, so be it – however that is a huge step – and we might then get difficulty in NATO agreeing to things.
I donāt have any examples as nato has only been called on once. Perhaps itās too much news they say things about nato and would everyone help etc.
hopefully everything would run smoothly if ever needed.
Exactly. On the one occasion Article 5 was called, everyone responded.
On a separate note.
IAV 2024: First M10 Booker combat vehicle to be delivered in February30 January 2024
“The US Army’s first M10 combat vehicle is scheduled to be delivered in February, Janes learnt at Defence iQ’s International Armour Vehicles (IAV) 2024 conference held in London from 22 to 25 January.
The first phase of low-rate initial production (LRIP 1) of the M10 began in the first quarter (Q1) of fiscal year (FY) 2023, following a USD1.4 billion contract award to General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) in June 2022.
The company announced on 6 July 2023 that it had received a USD257.6 million contract modification for LRIP 2. Initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) is planned to commence in Q4 of FY 2024. The first unit equipped (FUE) with the M10 is planned for 2025.
The vehicle is designed to deliver a mobile, protected direct fire capability to US Army infantry brigade combat teams (BCTs), with its XM35 105 mm main armament providing lethal and sustained fires against enemy armoured vehicles, hardened fortifications, and dismounted soldiers.”
https://www.
janes.com/defence-news/land-forces/latest/iav-2024-first-m10-booker-combat-vehicle-to-be-delivered-in-february
M10 Booker – a luxury only the Americans could afford. Quite bizarre to use a 105mm tank round against dismounted Infantry, unless it has special anti-personnel type of ammunition.
However our 7 Lt Mech Brigade lacks direct firepower, but they won’t be getting the Booker.
On a separate note.
IAV 2024: First M10 Booker combat vehicle to be delivered in February30 January 2024
āThe US Armyās first M10 combat vehicle is scheduled to be delivered in February, Janes learnt at Defence iQās International Armour Vehicles (IAV) 2024 conference held in London from 22 to 25 January.
The first phase of low-rate initial production (LRIP 1) of the M10 began in the first quarter (Q1) of fiscal year (FY) 2023, following a USD1.4 billion contract award to General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) in June 2022.
The company announced on 6 July 2023 that it had received a USD257.6 million contract modification for LRIP 2. Initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) is planned to commence in Q4 of FY 2024. The first unit equipped (FUE) with the M10 is planned for 2025.
The vehicle is designed to deliver a mobile, protected direct fire capability to US Army infantry brigade combat teams (BCTs), with its XM35 105 mm main armament providing lethal and sustained fires against enemy armoured vehicles, hardened fortifications, and dismounted soldiers.ā
The US Army hate to have the media call it a light tank and refer to it as an assault gun. Weighing 38-42t, it is fast and has a modern US-designed Low Recoil 105mm gun. No info on the armour – it probably won’t be Special Armour, probably RHA. Equipping Inf BCTs.
Role – ‘The M10 Booker is an armored vehicle that is intended to support our Infantry Brigade Combat Teams by suppressing and destroying fortifications, gun systems and trench routes, and then secondarily providing protection against enemy armored vehicles.
āāMaj. Gen. Glenn Dean, program executive officer of Army Ground Combat Systems’
Its an impressive piece of kit for an Inf Bde. Overkill for it to take out dismounted soldiers – we use rifles, machine guns and mortars!
We use NLAW, Javelin ATGW etc to take out armoured vehicles and hardened fortifications. So is the M10 Booker necessary for an Inf Bde?
It will seriously increase the logistic tail in an Inf Bde. Only the Yanks would have enough $/Ā£ to buy this kit for an Inf Bde.
Yup but three months late!
If Trump was in power he’d tell the EU to do one šŖšŗ š¤
Would the UK remain ‘teamed’ with the US – or be an invited guest on the EU mission?
A very good question Graham.
So 6 warships in the region and a sovereign airbase in range is not meaningful assistance?
Not yet, he isn’t.
That clown belongs in prison alongside our own Bluffer.
Will the septics smell their coffee before drinking it, not so sure.
However, does the free world need a Trump redux, no, it does not.
Penny pinching does not quite describe what the last 14 years of Conning Govt has done to the UK, doubt Labour will be any better and that should be the planning assumptions – the situation is going to get worse.
Would you be happy to pay 60p in the Ā£ income tax and 25 percent VAT to balance the books and pay for an expanded military?
Where do your numbers come from?
Have you included a reduction of one rank of the officer corps?
Have you included greater accountability of all officers and civil servants in projects which have run over budget, including those who have gone onto pensions?
Thought not.
ļ»æšļ»æ I’d be happy for all those that don’t pay the right tax to actually pay ,for certain benefits to be reduced , certain job structures to be streamlined and for certain priorities to be realligned…
Daft as it sounds reforming council tax would probably take care of a lot of what is needed.
A small terraced house or flat is band A, which is 66% of Band D, Band H is 200% Band D. So a Billionaire living in a Mansion pays less than 3 times Band A.
And you canāt hide a Mansion in an off shore bank š
That means local Government is properly funded and no longer needs as much Central Government Funding. Which last year was just shy of Ā£60 Billion.
While from over here we see ourselves as the only people on the planet who are there with you?
ļ»æ
‘NATO and its defense parasites’? NATO has gone to war once. The US was attacked on 09/11. You invoked the treaty. I believe everyone sent troops to Afghanistan at some point. Everyone took casualties. Your deadbeat xenophobes voted in Trump who threw it all away.
Perhaps that is why only the British are joining you this time.
I agree.
It does matter.
USN do understand we have a smaller GDP but do expect us to do something proportionate.
Sending a QEC + T45 + T23 is plenty of help and they will be perfectly happy to make up escort numbers.
Even if UK are only covering while a Nimitz us rotated in and out.,
Seems like the QE is being lined up to replace the Ike CBG in the Arabian Sea.
Seems like it.
Even a Minister has said soā¦.so it *might* be true.
Iāll be interested to see what is on the 30mm mountsā¦..there will be 40mm already acquired for T31 so Iād not be too surprised to see those being swapped into other vessels that are going in harms way.
That is definite UOR level stuff that wonāt make anyone wince too badly.
Hi SB, The talk definitely does sound like QE will be going as a replacement for Ike, not to supplement. However, there are some key decisions that need to be made prior to sailing.
1. A task group will be required to protect the carrier. As thereās already a T45 and T23 in theatre along with the Gulf based T23. Then just another T45 and possibly another T23 will be required. But pulling the current T45 and T23 away to guard the carrier, kind of defeats the object of defending shipping sailing the Red Sea. As the carrier will be in the Arabian Sea.
2. How will the task groupās logistics be handled? Will QE and its group be allowed to dock in Oman, for a resupply? If not then a tanker and solid stores RFA be required. Is the Fort Victoria in a state where she can be made ready to sail? If not can other NATO ships provide the logistics
3. When Ike returns to the US, will the USN still provide some Arliegh Burkeās to patrol off Yemen? If not (which is highly unlikely at the moment), then the offensive strike will be solely conducted by the shipās F35s and Paveways. As unless Lancaster is sent with its NSMs, none of our frigates/destroyers have a credible land attack option, other than the 4.5ā and their Wildcats. Could we also be seeing a contingent of USMC F35s join the ship? Possibly with 12 of each. With possible support from a Voyager flying out of Saudi/Oman or Cypress.
4. Crowsnest will also be another necessary requirement. Apart from the odd tidbit of information. Thereās been very little heard on its progress past IOC. Which Iād like to consider means the program is moving ahead with no major issues. But there will be a need for at least four Merlins, to provide enough cover. Obviously more would be preferable as they donāt have the detection range of the Hawkeye. But as the Seaking ASaCs proved in Afghan. They were very good at mapping out threats on the ground. I would like to think Crowsnest with its better signal processing, would be even better!
5. It will be imperative that the QE has better self-protection, as their is a credible threat to the ship. The Houthis have demonstrated that Iranās anti-ship ballistic missiles can hit a ship. The size of QE will make it a recognizable target for the missiles infrared seekers. Therefore the ship must have its full complement of Phalanx as a bare minimum. But I agree that the Mk4 40mmās should also be investigated as an additional option, if they can replace the DS30. Then the ship would have two layers of air defence via Phalanx and the Mk4ās. The Navy can definitely get them fitted via a UOR? As I t would certainly cut through the integration red tape and speed up the installation. There just needs to be the will and drive in the Navy to make it so. If four were fitted, it would also require linking to Artisan via the CMS, but also need four optical directors.
So thereās a lot to do before QE is sent!
How do you know so much about this stuff. Interesting post, thanks for sharing!
Sadly after getting my brown shoes, I spent a couple of years in a joint command planning office. So picked up a bit of knowledge of what other services require to kit to a location then operate for a month or two.
40s for the 30s. Sounds good. The forward port 30mm mount looks too squashed in by the Phalanx and a limited arc of fire. Wonder if they’d ever move the Phalanx back a tad or mount if up on the deck in the port corner remove that silly looking gpmg post? Can’t see any decoy mounts yet either. Anyway, some additional things might finally come out of the shed…
What UK inability to provide meaningful assistance in the Red Sea? We have 6 naval vessels (a lot for a country our size) including HMSs Diamond, Richmond and Lancaster in the area – and our Typhoons have joined with USN jets to bomb the crap out of the Houthis on at least 2 recent occasions.
Interesting that you think China is more dangerous in 2024 than Russia.
I would hope that the US President whoever does not act solely on important matters on the basis of where his mother came from or whether he likes our King.
Trump is a wannabe dictator and deluded fantasist who doesn’t care about anyone else never mind reality.
He’s a convicted fraudster and rapist so far with 91 indictments going to trial.
His fraud conviction is clear evidence that he can’t deal with the facts. Rape and support for abortion rights repeal showing deep misogyny.
He’s ineligible for public office having engaged in Insurrection or supporting the same. So the DC Appeals Court and Supreme Court must uphold the Constitution of the United States and reject his Presidential immunity claim for ultimate accountability exemption and confirm that he’s ineligible.
Because of his cult and aggressive actions it seems that the Judiciary may not be brave enough to defend freedom and will accept Dictatorship.
There is still a good chance that he will be a convicted felon before the election and some of his cult will not vote for a criminal president. We shall see..
Iām having a hard time understanding why anyone thinks US politicians are poking their nose into UK business and if they did why would anyone in the UK care.
The Biden administration has already made it clear it does not want a closer relationship with the UK.
We do 10 times more for the USA than anyone else and a thousand times more than its number one ally Israel. We get f**k all in return.
The US has more than enough problems of its own without worrying if the UK operates 3 or 5 E7.
Although I agree I do wish the MOD would just order the 2 struck off damn airframes and put the E7 wedgetail order back upto the 5 aircraft we will have purchased the hardware for- eg the radar sets, consoles and wiring.
Seems like colossal mismanagement on the whole acquisition here. Hope some buggers are held accountable for this. Big need to do better.
‘Held accountable’ hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…..
I agree, cutting to 3 when you already paid for five is nonsense. Even if you just keep 2 in storage.
Absolutely agree!
Indeed itās lunacy not to, proper pissing money away to balance the books in year.
What many people donāt seem to appreciate is the US security situation in the western pacific is completely dire..itās heading for a war with a peer power that it may very well loss, and even if it wins is going to be pyrric at best. One of the key things keeping a lid on that will be if china thinks Europe will back the US to the hilt or go..sorry itās your warā¦ The US Pissing off itās only real friends is a very bad ideaā¦for every western nation. We get fixated by the European security situationā¦.Russia is nothing really when you consider the real power in the anti western block.
Agree, the real threat against China will be economic sanctions that include both Europe and the USA and blockade of the pacific and Indian oceans. The USA benefits massively from NATO in this regard.
“ One of the key things keeping a lid on that will be if china thinks Europe will back the US to the hilt or go..sorry itās your war”
What would Europe be able to contribute militarily?
Any war will be a long drawn out conflict that will involve both nations trying to exhaust each other and attack each otherās supply chains across the globeā¦so Europe would contribute in so many ways.
Given your thinking, the US will be attacking European countries.
Cesis in Latvia is now little China.
Polish high speed rail being built by China.
A Prague Mayor gave them the High Port
A Greek port is owned by… China.
China is invidious and a line needs to be drawn and their influence rolled back as well as their continued threats against Taiwan challenged with Taiwan recognised by the free world.
I was watching a news broadcast yesterday on how the US desperately needs 39 amphibious vessels and the navy has reduced its target number to 31 purely to save money. They spend $800 billion a year. Moral of the story is peace time military spending that takes place in a vacuum will never be seen as enough.
When viewing American forums they have the same complaints/discussions we do.
Forces to small, cutting programs etc etc.
Yes, but the French never seem to have the same. No one in France seems to be decrying the fact they have 1 frigate in the Red Sea and no aircraft carrier.
Pass on that one I dont read French news.
Probably more bothered about what happens inside the country than outside.
Totally agree. There was a time when the UK punched above its weight, no so any more, most embarrassing.
I have a very strong feeling, that if the MoD and the three services were OFSTED’d they would fail. With a not fit for purpose!
Seems like our defences are designed by decades of cuts to fail quickly so we can embrace the authoratarians who we’ve always opposed but whom have bought our rulers.
I think Iād rather die trying to stop them than live under that.
I’m sure you won’t be surprised to find that most of us here agree with you, George, that the government’s refusal to increase Defence spending to accord with risk is unconscionable, and their willingness to continue to cut in real terms leading to gaps in all the services is a dereliction of the first water. It doesn’t matter if we are looking at Army, Navy or RAF, it’s the same story.
Interesting typo, as it happens it actually makes a good point. We all need water to live and for the armed services that water is their equipment and mass. Governments over the last fifty years are in dereliction of their duty to protect that water source and because of it we are in danger of being almost as defenceless as we were at the start of the second world war. More so if you consider at the time just how large our navy was.
But is that us? Are we now one of those nations that has just quietly shriveled up and died. Do we still believe that it is right to stand up and oppose those people that would oppress and murder, by force of arms if necessary. Because if we don’t then we should just scrap the lot and invest it in other services while we are still allowed to think for ourselves.
If we do however, then it is time to get out the tools, clean up the watercourse and start putting things right because the doomsday clock does not have a snooze button as much as our politicians would like us to believe it has.
Mostly people/politicians feel safe in the U.K. Stuff is in the shops, phones and electronics keep most busy and everything is fine.
Most donāt seem to realise that to have the life they have has taken a lot of work over the past few hundred years. The forces have played a massive part in this and speak softly with a big stick has worked since WW2.
It would appear only when goods and services arenāt available, no gas, fuels and god forbid the internet went down for a while due to external actors will people start asking demanding something is done. The call for the forces to fix the problems will go out and then people will realise the problems canāt be fixed due to lack of manpower and equipment. Then the outrage will happen.
The governmentās way of doing things has been maximum short term benefit for minimum effort. The current bunch wonāt be here in a few years so why spend money trying to secure a future allowing some future politicians to take the credit.
I would say defence needs to be put in a cross party system, done by the House of Lords or something like that. Taking the politics out of it.
There are set capabilities set out and they are funded and equipped to undertake these roles.
As a basic it would be: maintain nuclear at sea deterrent, carrier battle group ready to sail in a week, a division able to deploy for 9 months, maintain bases at set locations in the world, an escort in each ocean, air policing, provide 24/7 awacs coverage for a week and so on.
This is then funded with whatās needed to accomplish the goals. The politics is taken out of the forces and everyone knows what can and canāt b done.
Well, we will just have to rely on the US Air Force to protect the UK in the meantime. They can not refuse due to two important air bases Lakenheath and Mildenhall plus other establishments accounting for thousands of US citizens. I know it may be a cynical approach but surely these facts only assist the treasury when it comes to defence cuts. I fear it’s the plain truth of the matter and the US knows it.
Who are they protecting the UK from exactly? You know we donāt fly AWACS routinely over the UK right?
Whatever the RAF were monitoring with their AWACS and I don’t know aerial monitoring routines but surely that’s not public knowledge. I’m suggesting a general cynicism in Treasury thinking. Maybe the policy going forward is for the UK to outsource air surveillance to the US and NATO members? The Wedgtail procurement is so minimal that the effort is hardly worth bothering with and thus, strengthens my argument.
The UK only uses AWACS for expeditionary warfare not home defence unlike in the 80ās when we did fly shakeltons around the UK. So we are not relying on anyone else to provide AWACS for our defence.
We’ve used AWACs over the UK & North sea.
The reality is this is really about the security of our home islands..after all the only real threat to the home islands is Russia and the Russian airforce has proven to be utterly shiteā¦the RAF would be able to destroy itā¦after all any attack on the UK has to come a very very long wayā¦also NATO itself provides most of the airborne radar in Europe..not the U.S.
Interesting Jonathan, are you suggesting the abandonment of UK air surveillance? We have early warning in abundance through radar etc. However, with Russian and Chinese naval vessels likely to become far more visible around our islands how could we monitor and destroy them if required apart from ship platforms? Sorry, I’m being facetious but the argument for more Wedtails appears to be falling on stony ground, which does underline the Government’s disinterest in airborne warning aircraft. Come to think about it, there is a general malaise around Westminster about defense full stop! P.S. Don’t wright off Russia, Napolian and Hitler learnt a very expensive lesson by doing so.
No not at all we need them as we are committed members of NATOā¦itās just that people do get over excited about threats to our home islandā¦most of our security risk relates to things that are a bit more distantā¦.I donāt write off Russiaā¦invading it would be a disaster..but we are not invading it..Russias ability to project power is not really that greatā¦.itās literally breaking itself to try and defeat a nation that was essentially a second world nation right on its doorstepā¦no disrespect to Ukraine but itās a minnow in regards to national capabilitiesā¦the RN would be able to smash the northern fleet and the Russian airforce would have little hope of surviving an air war near or around the UK.
AWACS does not monitor Russian and Chinese vessels. It does not monitor vessels full stop.
E7 can do this task but itās not used for this.
P8 does monitor vessels.
Jim, how on earth do you know what they observe? I can make a good guess that the UK homeland has been subject to surveillance on a number of issues, terrorism being just one. As for Chinese and Russian warships, they will probably be monitored both by air, sea and possibly from below? However, unlike yourself, I don’t have a direct line to the MOD.
Good point.BUt we also have insufficient P8……
From an operational view alone….having just three of anything does not make sense??
The US is the biggest single financial contributor to the NATO AWACS force and has a significant number of US aircrew operating the aircraft along side other NATO nations
The RAF protects UK airspace and has QRA Typhoons at 2 sites. The US does not protect UK airspace for us. Their aircraft fly off and bomb stuff etc overseas – different job.
National security at risk with government cuts to RAF
We have a government which appears to take great pride in cutting the armed forces and we wonder why?
Is it because the money saved can be spent on benefits in which to try and capture the vote of the great unwashed? As I posted earlier (deleted for some reason) the benefit bill for London alone in 2011/12 was greater than the defence budget.
Or could it be something along the lines of the Manchurian candidate, The PM(India) , Hunt (China) and Cameron (china) all have vested interests in other countries
Labour, the liberals and the Greens are no different with them all happy to sell the Uk down the river for personal and ideological gain. On that note I personally feel that Labour and the Conservatives look towards rejoining the EU and pushing for a EU military where defence spending will be shared (not exactly a bad thing) leaving them with more money to spend on what they feel is value for money such as buying peoples votes with more freebies and keeping themselves in power just that little bit longer.
Spot on farouk
“benefit bill for London alone in 2011/12 was greater than the defence budget.”
That about covers it Farouk, our Social security bill is vast, bigger by the year and rapidly getting beyond our ability to pay it.
Priorities my friend, priorities……
Interesting how the BBC has knocked out an article opining about the 2 child benefit cap which came into force in 2017.
Two-child benefit cap: āEvery month is a struggleā
Mum-of-five Sophie says money is so tight that she regularly goes without in order to feed her children.
l
Given how few people in the UK are having children this woman should probably get a medal.
She gets gold standard benefits system instead Jim…
She gets child allowance for just two kids, thatās hardly gold standard. What would she get in Sweden, Denmark or France? Thatās gold standard. We lucky if we are bronze standard for family benefits in the UK.
The answer Jim is you have the kids you can afford to have, I had two kids, because I can afford two kids on my income….
Dirty phrase I know, ‘personal responsibility’.
Bronze standard, good grief, this governments generous beyond the wildest dreams of people 30 years ago…
Triple linked pension guarantee, Ā£600 per household for heating if you are over 65, a universal credit scheme that tops up the minimum wage (a minimum wage that steadily rises), child benefit etc, etc.
Lets not forget eco4, where if you meet the right criteria, the government (along with industry) will spend Ā£10,000 on your house or flat to replace windows, new boiler insulation F.O.C ect, etc…
Bronze standard Jim, people these days don’t know how good they have got it!
My option of course, no doubt Labour will borrow even more, to give even more away and further and further into debt we slide…..
Which bit do you live in ? By 2035 population is forecast to be 73 million.
Call me old fashioned Farouk, but there’s a reason I don’t drive round in a petrol Range Rover, I couldn’t afford to keep it on the road…
Remember in the dim and distant past when we had a little thing called ‘personal responsibility’.
A lot of folks these days would have to Google that, as the Government has stepped in and taken over that role today.
Live within your means, another head scratcher for many born after 1990, what quaint and old fashioned notions I have…
Yes the answer is to scrap the basic state pension which is easily the biggest benefit the UK pays out, after that all non means tested benefits should go starting with winter fuel allowance. If we did this we could easily spend 8% of GDP on defence and bring back the empire.
Interesting idea Jim and I always thought you were left wing…
You think we could bring back the empire on 8%GDP, well, you seem to be a man with a plan…
Wrong way round. It is the means tested benefits bill that will keep soaring as more and more people of working age game the system. The basic state pension is low by European standards and is a predictable and, by changing the retirement age, controllable cost.
Retirement and inwork benefits I.e tax credits are the vast majority of the benefits paid by the government. If you want to free up benefits thatās the easiest way to do it.
Cutting unemployment benefits or universal credit is tiny.
Margaret Thatcher told everyone they needed to save for their retirement 40 years ago and they could not rely on the state so why do we need the basic state pension anymore.
You know I actually thought you were joking /being sarcastic when you initially suggested It appears not …
The pension is not a ‘benefit’. People pay in for over 30 years and it makes a big difference both then and now to those that need it.
If you truly believe it should be scrapped then …well Im actually speechless
.
As for in work tax credits if the companies actually paid a decent wage (which would inc the right tax) then it wouldn’t be needed would it.
Jim/John. As with scrapping anything, the saved money would NOT go on defence, just something else.
Personal responsibilty……spot on, but is going the same way as accountability for politicians.
Yep spot on, they would no doubt spend billions building transgender public toilets instead, anything but defence…
Maybe a European military is the way to go. Everyone one on here seems to think the UK is little more than a vassal state completely unable to defend its self from some major threat that would take the UK over the second that the three American squadrons leave.
And Joseph Borrel things the EU will have a force in place by February 17th about three months late?
How does that deter anything?
Iām talking about creating a European Army, no idea what youāre talking about.
Obviously it would take years to build a European army.
It would be an ineffective disaster Jim, but if you let the French take care of the catering at least they would eat well!
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, watch Hunt and Cameron get non exec directorships of “front” companies for large Chinese corporations (state owned) once their useless political careers have ended. Meanwhile why should Sunak care? If it all goes tits up he will hop onto a private jet and fly himself and his billionaire chums straight back to India until all the commotion has calmed down.
The vast majority of state benefits go on in-work benefits and the state pension. The benefits system is nowhere near as generous as people belive it is.
Exactly
Of the 31 Countries in the OECD, spending on family cash benefits at 2.1% of GDP was the second highest in the OECD and spending on housing benefits (cash and services) was 1.3% of GDP ‘the highest level of all OECD countries’
That’s according to Google Jim, so of course I dare say it’s Right wing propaganda.
In reality a van drives round the housing estates and the starving impoverished masses rush out to fight over a mouldy loaf of bread thrown from the back in scenes remenist of Stalingrad in 1942 …. It certainly explains why we have a million vacancies in the economy at any one time and the population in general is the fattest in Europe…..
That’s obviously because the benefits system is so poor.
You know the UK has one of the highest labour participation rates in the OECD right?
The other two figures you quote are wrong
Where did you find them?
It is very, very widely abused.
There are huge number of construction/retail/pub/hospo workers who are getting a nominal salary paid that is over the threshold so they are full time employed. The state then tops up and the employer pays the balance by other means to their ācousinā – Iām asked to do it every day and I refuse.
There are whole WhatsApp groups devoted to scamming the benefits system.
Surely if you know so does the government/HMRC and they will chase this up and punish those guilty of this fraud….surely…
Ha, ha, ha, ha
The only thing more broken than Post Office Horizon, HMCTS or energy billing systems in this country is HMRC.
The problem is if they are subcontractors they can invoice you to pay whatever outfit they like.
We deduct flat rate tax under the CIS scheme, as we are told to by HMRC, and money goes out.
The issue is that some of the 3rd party channels for this are none too honest.
We just refuse to split payments. Although that gets hard when the subcontractors use different umbrella companies.
Exactly Robert. Our welfare payments are actually a good deal.more stingy than most of our near neighbours in Europe. Inconvenient for the Thatcherites and their weary red top tabloids, but that’s the reality.
An individual benefit is stingy, but if you are a fraudster who is claiming to be a dozen different people with fake paperwork, then a dozen benefits do add up.
In Rory Stewart’s book ‘Politics on the Edge’, Stewart asserts that when he received Jeremy Hunt’s private leadership pitch (2019) our current Chancellor told him that he wanted to increase Defence spending to 4% of GDP, citing such things as the unfairness of exporting defence to the USA.
Whether he has simply been captured by the Treasury, perceived political priority or because this is being pushed directly from Sunak is difficult to say.
My suspicion is that something like a concentrated effort is made by civil servants to persuade British politicians that defence is unaffordable and that the Americans will be there, making defence a low priority. It’s just a theory, but it would go some way to explaining why every successive government appears incapable of seeing what most of the people around the country can see and why they all stick doggedly to a policy of managed decline.
Or Hunt just lied to him….
He didnāt gave a Post Trussian economy then?
At that time he could have credibly increased borrowing a small amount to pay for defence.
The Truss thing would have worked if it was a series of conditionals linked to increased receipts.
For instance we will cut the 45% tax rate to 44% and cut by 1% each following year but only cut if actual net receipts rise by Y% higher than inflation.
No shock to the markets just clear fowards guidance.
Thing with dropping corporation and top band taxes is that receipts go up quite quickly as justifications shopping is reduced.
If you want more corporation tax paid in UK something has to be done about Irelandās artificially low rates and Monaco etcā¦.
I think that the defence budget is small fry compared with the numbers being talked about.
I’m skeptical of the market response to Liz Truss, I don’t think the problem was the money per se, it was the breaking of a consensus that spooked them.
Incredibly vast sums were shoveled into the furnace that was COVID and no-one batted an eyelid because it was the global consensus.
Like it or not, we live in an age where the political views of market leaders carry more weight than that of MPs.
Even if we do accept that the Truss premiership necessitated starving the defence budget that doesn’t align with the tax cuts (more to come) and cash splurges elsewhere.
But, by and large, I think you’re right. ‘Trussonomics’ might have worked with better communication and starting with real supply side reforms first. Her premiership was an unmitigated disaster but, a qualified but, she at least was seemingly ambitious to revive the UK. Neither party appears to have that ambition today, especially when it comes to the shocking wasting of our armed forces.
I might just have to reread The Manchurian Candidate. In my view the real rot set in with the SDSR in 2010, when that nice Mr Cameron went for the whole of defence with an axe, now as foreign secretary he is saying how dangerous the world has become. If he had been looking forward instead of at next weekās headlines and cosying up to comrade XI we might not be quite so deep in the sh*t. And his fellow traveller Osborne is just as culpable, but I would hate to interfere with any of his numerous sinecures.
The goal is to leave Britain unarmed , they,re traitors.
Another delay. It doesn’t really matter anymore who is at fault when it comes to the well being of the country. Everything we touch seems to end up with problems. Unless somebody cracks down on inefficiency and puts up some money it is only going to get worse. Personally I have no faith that any politician will do anything.
Geoff: there isnāt the money to put up; the problem isnāt so much inefficiency as tribalism and indecision; and the āeverything we touch seems to end up with problemsā is a mindset we need to lose.
I’m not sure about the money., considering how much is being wasted but I agree with you about the attitudes. We do need to get away but I can hardly think of a programme that is an time and on budget.
Isn’t it the case though that we had let whole industrial capabilities fall through the floor? Astute, Ajax, Boxer, QEC, T26 required the resurrection of entire industries and skills. These are circus acts. T31 procurement is a bright spot; patrol frigates are a commodity…KISS ..keep it simple, stupid. Well defined scope, short project, commodity items = meet budget and delivery.
Three… THREE.
How is anyone even pretending that this is anything approaching a credible “capability”? We’d struggle to make this work in peace-time, let alone during confrontation, where attrition can be expected.
I’ve already used the word pathetic today, how about comical? UK defence is a genuinely depressing affair.
Although 3 is not an ideal number for sustainedoperations. The capability the E7 will provide will far surpass anything that could be achieved with 5 E3’s. And individual airframe availability will be far higher compared to E3.
But it doesnāt make it sensible.
The baseline establishment costs and training pipeline will be significant and Iād be pretty sure the ongoing running of the other two units would be pretty trivial.
As most of the capital costs was spent on the electronics it is very hard to understand that decision. In terms of accounting or maths or the threatscape we now see.
I guess it simply comes down to the equipment budget. The pot isn’t big enough for everything we want/need. And it’s already a pretty large Ā£288Bn package.The real terms projected cost is Ā£305bn. Hence why certain capabilitys and savings are being looked at. 11bn of that is inflation alone, plus Covid knock on affect delays.
Well only if they are all available of course …
We have the 5xE7 gear just cancelled the planes…So what I’d like to know is if that truly is value for money having paid for 2 x pieces of expensive kit sitting there doing fk all.
Given Boeings trouble with manufacturing 737s at the moment, could we even get 2 more, that were bolted together properly? Even if the money could be found?
See my reply to SP. š
Silly question maybe but can the UK lease any E7s off the RAAF in the interim or from anyone else that operates it for that matter? And will the UK also look at increasing the P-8 numbers sometime too?
Why not look at something else too, Saab Global Eye? Not as powerful but could be good as a second tier AEW for specific areas of Ops.
Given B737 production woes, you might be on to something.
In your dreams. The RAAF has a continental land mass the size of Europe to defend not to mention any forward deployed commitments in the Indo-Pacific theatre. If you think the RAFās 3 airframes will be stretched thin spare a thought for the RAAFās area of operations (e.g. there is one currently on exercise out of Guam) with just six airframes. if anything the RAAF needs more E7s and if it had more they wouldnāt be going anywhere near the UK.
Although the JORN over the horizon radar which (depending on the atmospheric conditions) can see as far out as some parts of the SCS can provide early warning and tracking of hostile aircraft it is not able to provide weapons grade tracks to hand off to fighter jets or GBAD.
The RAAFās 14 strong P8 fleet and forthcoming MQ55 Perigrines and Triton HALE UAVs will be able to perform some of the ISR role of the E7s but again not provide tracks for air to air intercepts.
The RAAF is already contributing where it can to standing up the UKs E7s but training and graduating RAF crews and passing on their expertise operating the platform.
Hi OZ, yes, it was just a thought. I know Aus is big as is our region and Aus needs to be remain covered, engaged and strong. Good points. The UK needs to sort out its own mess. Lol. I’m here in Sydney. š¦šŗ š¬š§
NATO has loads of AWACS covering an area about the size of Australia so we are hardly short.
NATO AWACS are E3ās. They need loads just to keep a few in the air. RAAF is currently operating an E7 out of Germany to help out with Ukraine. Why? Because NATO canāt reliably do so.
For once, UK got the jump on US in ordering the E7 & then changed the order from 5 to 3 just when US starts ordering. If the order goes back to 5 tomorrow, how far back in the queue would the extra airframes be?
NATO has ordered 6 E7s to begin replacing its E3s to be operational from 2031 before its E3 fleet is retired in 2035
Decision is the āminimum operational capabilityā required by Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) for āday zeroā wartime conflict leaving the door seemingly open for further E7s to replace all 14 NATO E3s
The RAAF E7 commitment out of Ramstein is for 6 months and involves 100 air and ground crew and significant commitment of scarce resources. It probably explains why there is no Wedgetail at Red Flag this year alongside the RAAFs F35 deployment.
The frames are commercials that are stripped and modified.
Some of the UK ones are used frames.
The used 737 are probably in better shape than the new 737, Boeing is throwing together at the moment.
All 3 were undelivered white Tails. But that model is now OOP so we would have to go 2nd hand.
It wouldnāt as we use White Tail Airframes and convert them in Brum. The Big Bottle neck is the Radar Sets and we already have 5 right at the front of the queue.
Shame our Masters are a bunch of retards š„“
The RAAF has posted a Wedgetail currently out of Germany providing eyes and ears over Ukraine. It is also a chance for NATO to be reminded of its capabilities ahead of their future AWACs replacement.
So to summarise the state of affairs
We have a belligerent nuclear armed power attacking a sovereign democratic country in the same continent as the UK inhabits. A sovereign democratic country that the belligerent state had a treaty to uphold that said country’s sovereignty and protect it from armed conflict
The belligerent nuclear armed state is run by a psychopathic madman willing to use chemical weapons, terror war tactics and is in charge of a country that is rapidly arming up for a prolonged war of attrition.
Said madman has lots of friends and allies and is developing an axis of crazy psychopathic leaders all hell bent on overturning the world order, ending western hegemony and what has stood since at least 1990 world-wide generalised political stability and avoidance of great power wars. Said mad psychopathic leaders now developing into an alliance are hell bent on building new empires of their own
All our allied nations are striving to grapple with a pressing need to increase defence expenditure and their military-industrial base to provide resilience in an expected high intensity war- except apparently the UK which has strived to improve its defence posture by continuing to make cuts to its military.
Our closest allies have called the UK out on this and begged/ pleaded with the UK government not to scrap warships, cut the army or reduce the frontline strength of the RAF- only for these requests to be consistently ignored for ongoing salami slicing of the military.
Our own heads of the armed forces- eg the professionals who the government should be listening too, have gone out on record to state we have inadequate numbers of warships, we have inadequate numbers of tanks, fighter jets, strike bombers, MPA, AWACS, helicopters and drones and that the army is numerically too small and needs to increase in a short period of time to around +120,000 troops (including reserves)
All of this has been blinded ignored- if that does not equate to an act of deliberate treason I don’t know what does?
I sadly think that we are heading for a military conflict we will loose and in losing the conflict we may live to deeply regret the time we had and should have used to prepare and rearm (whilst bowing to our Chinese and Russian masters who by that stage control the world and the old NATO states are just a defeated irrelevance)
I jest somewhat but you get my gist.
I love how emotional you get. But you are right about 2 points, we do want to change the world order and remove western hegemony. You have had your chance and as it must be becoming clear even to you, large parts of the world want a change and want an alternative to the western system. The west has weaponise trade and the financial system, engage in constant war, coup and have no idea what real diplomacy is, are you really surprised a change is wanted?
By and large I think the people of those countries want do be western, itās the autocratic rulers they have that hate the west.
Except when it comes to their kids they all strangely want their kids with western passports and education.
Ok then, explain to me what real democracy looks like. Perhaps it is a president who has ruled for over 15 years and locks up political opponents? Or a one-party state with state control of companies? Or a religious autocracy where freedom is punished with death?
I don’t see desperate refugees from impoverished countries fleeing to China or Russia, do you? It’s almost like it’s not a very nice place to live.
Whereas Mr Putin has weaponised the Orthodox. Church.
‘The West’ generally react after a group of fanatics, a broadening nexus, have attacked or otherwise goaded those democratic states.
It’s an inevitable offshoot of political choice that we enhance lifestyle spending to the detriment of defence, and thus end up fretting when that neglect requires addressing. In the meantime, our collective 2.5%, whilst far below the required outlay, does seem to be countering an eastern autocratic neighbour who is allocating upwards of 30% or so? invading, unprovoked, a country that ‘doesn’t exist’.
Certainly, this century is going to clarify which political system emerges most worth defending, but the initial reaction from the those residing in the ‘non-existent state’ should give pause for thought for now.
As an aside, there is another ‘non-state’, we are led to understand, residing just south of China. That state has also indicated it’s democratic rights in no uncertain terms. The Taiwanese have always seen themselves as non-Chinese, of course, as you’ll be well aware.
Regards
I think you mean the Governments that enslave a large part of the world want an alternative as the West is an embarrassing example of relatively clean government that might inspire people elsewhere to want the same.
That is why Russia has more political prisoners than the whole West which has at least seven times its population. China has more people in gulags than Stalin. Do you really want to talk about Iran?
When you started WW3 with Leave and Trump you had some initial success but you will be pushed back into your hole. This is the clearest war of good versus evil since the first two years of WW2 before we were compromised by allying with the Soviet Union.
And Putin has weaponised nothing I suppose, alas delete āwestā insert āPutins Russiaā To say different is just your political slant. A new world order would be nice but not with Putins oligarch Nazi methods and thought process or Chinas continued communist mind set! Alas Iām sure you will come up with an excuse for your Pooptin.
If the balloon goes up with Russia and China verses NATO+ the UK spending 2% 3% or 10% of GDP on defence wonāt make the slightest difference. It not 1939. Guarding the free world solo is no longer our job.
Using that ‘arguement’ maybe we should reduce it then…as going down from 2%-1% would have a lot less impact overall.
The point being, that in the period from 1936 to 1939 we had industry that could easily ramp up to a war footing. Today, we have very little industry or industry that can quickly change to generating war materiel. Therefore ramping up to a war footing will have a negligible impact on generating primary kit for war, i.e. ships, aircraft etc.
The other factor that people probably haven’t factored in, is the technology that is in all our kit. Producing significantly more missiles for example will be a huge problem. As lot of the subcomponents are made abroad. But also you need skilled assembly workers to put these things together. Which will take time to train.
It would be interesting to run an exercise where a company such as MBDA are given orders by the Government to produce an additional 100 each of ASRAAM, METEOR, Brimstone and Storm Shadow. Could they do it, but more importantly perhaps is can they sustain it?
Well said š
You’re right on all accounts.
I’m voting Labour- only way to guarantee the Tory scum are gone and we can attempt to sort out the utter mountain of excrement they have left behind- that is going to take 2-3 terms of a labour government to tackle.
Don’t belittle yourself to Davids level Mr Bell.
There is something called Facebook for political rants like this.
“They must take a long-sighted approach to defence planning, ensuring that the RAF remains a formidable force”. Sorry, that horse bolted years ago. What we are left with is a one or two trick pony, not close to being a formidable force.
For some reason, I seem to recall that the issue was about finding a big hanger on a secure airfield where final assembly and testing could take place. I may have got my wires crossed, or misheard it, so happy if someone wants to add anything, or debunk my thought in this regard.
Typical HMG got rid of our E3 Sentry before the replacement took place with E-7 wedgetails even though only 3 order for the job ,anything to save money now we’re left with nothing.And for David Cameron to speak up about this project ,honestly who’s he kidding after what he did to our forces in 2010 .š God help us with our politicians keep playing same old Record we spend more on Defence then any other nations in Europe .And put more money in Defence .There just don’t get Defence and keep smileing .It’s only 9.15am , and I need a drink šŗ š¬š§
From a broader perspective am I right that our defence budget in times past did not include either the nuclear deterrent or pensions (i.e. they were accounted for separately)? If they were removed from the current defence budget, what would it then be as a % of GDP? Are we kidding ourselves that our defence budget is a big as we think it is compared to the past? Perhaps the 2% target would be very realistic if these elements were again removed, at least for comparison purposesā¦
Correct and has been mooted on here many times previously .
You can thank our esteemed foreign secretary ‘Dave’ & his mate George for that particular sleight of hand accounting.
I did ask how France faired/reported defence spending once (as they too have the Nuclear deterent) but I can’t remember how that was replied to tbh..but I think it fair to say they were far better at spending than we.
Indeed. In my opinion, which I’ve had for some time after decades of observation, HMG see the MoD budget as primarily supporting the Military Industrial Complex, of which the nuclear side is a part.
Not giving conventional defence the people, kit, and conditions needed to face the threats that the nation has.
When will there be a debate in Parliament, and the wider nation, as to what “defence” really is? How many MPs are only interested in how many defence related jobs can arrive in their constituencies, rather than also seeing the wider whole regards the national defence interest.
I would disagree with that. Purely because we’ve seen the numbers of kit drastically fall. If it was mates rates, then you would expect certain parts of defence to be better off than other. Frankly they are not. Challenger is a good example. If a MP had in their constituency a factory that built and maintained Challenger, we would have seen the Challenger 3 upgrade 10 years ago. But also before that would have been a number of enhancement programs. Sadly we have not had a MP kicking and screaming as the Factories producing Challenger closed down years ago.
Morning Davey. Thanks for that.
As Lord Cameron pointed out , interesting words from the man who has done more damage to our armed forces than any other PM in living history .
What we are moving towards, though not as part of a fully thought out plan, is a level of forces sufficient to defend the UK but not capable of much more. It would have been better to have done this as a deliberate strategy rather than as a result of trying to keep costs down. If we had, the balance of forces and types of equipment might look very different.
Instead of carriers, we could have had a much larger fleet of SSN
Instead of LPDs we could have had more ASW frigates and AAW destroyers
Instead of a large transport fleet, we could have had more combat aircraft.
By clinging to a global role, we now have too little of anything to be effective anywhere.
So, either up the budget considerably to fund the ambition for a global role or accept it is beyond our ability/ willingness to afford and reorganize our defence forces for the narrower range of self defence tasks.
This links to our P5 UNSC position in my view, and our past global interests.
We should be fulfilling that role.
I’m waiting for HM opposition to come in and do exactly as you suggest, while in time returing us as a vassel to their EU,global corporation masters.
I so, so hope I’m wrong.
Thereās a lot would say thatās ādeclinistā talk :-).
Thereās a lot in what you say. That said, we are an island nation, we cannot feed ourselves, we cannot build the homes we need and we cannot afford the lifestyle to which ( most of us) have become accustomed without importing food, raw materials and energy. We need to pay for these by exporting. We have decided not to become an integral part of a āEuropeanā economy because that requires a level of sacrifice of autonomy which we are not prepared to accept. We have instead decided to rely on emerging Asia Pacific economies to be customers for our goods and services exports and to rebuild empire links to cut the price of food. French brie and Danish bacon are out; cheddar and New Zealand lamb are back in fashion. 90% of our imports arrive by sea. We need a global navy to secure sea lanes. I think there is a case for āfleetā carriers; not so sure about āstrikeā carriers. IMO there is a case for an amphibious capability so we can intervene in the littoral.
So the idea that we are āclingingā to a global role is to over simplify: geography, history and political, idealogical decisions have conspired to create this situation. To make things worse autocratic regimes are conspiring to exploit our vulnerability and the Westās lack of faith in itself.
I agree with everything you say. I’m not advocating a realignment of our forces to a smaller self defence capability, rather observing that that is what is happening by default. Every review reduces numbers to keep to a budget that is obviously too small to fund an effective wider global role. To deliver that both in terms of equipment and manpower, the budget would need to rise closer to 4% of gdp. Maintaining a nuclear deterrent, strike carriers and amphibious capability together with other assets to support and protect them will place impossible pressure on the budget, only worsening as the cost of each replacement piece of equipment – land, sea or air- rises faster than general non defence inflation.
GDP has to increase; we have to spend money more carefully; we have to build more equipment in the UK, standardise more and we have to make faster ‘good enough’ equipment decisions. Except for the economic growth, all these are happening….Boxer, CR3, Type 31, NS, sticking with Ajax. Details such as RN replacing mini guns with .50 cal machine gun and cancelling Westminster lifex say a lot about focussed attitudes. I think folks are on the case and with the program. There is a difficult 12 months ahead but T26 and T31 are not that far away.
Building more of our equipment in UK should make defence more politically acceptable – little opposition in France. Not much evidence so far of the new Defence Industrial Strategy though.
It is manifesting more as a pragmatic post Brexit political strategy: re-entry of Boxer program; Italy and Japan as Tempest partners and F-35B servicing; partnering with Netherlands on MRSS; subcontracting T31 modules to Poland – quid pro quo deals with individual countries as opposed to big euro projects. I see Germany has dropped its objection to selling Typhoons to Saudi Arabia and has also decided to fit Brimstone to its Typhoons. Top down diplomacy is first step…the King visits Germany; then Rheinmetal is invited to the UK….that’s how it works. We needed US help to get back into nuclear sub design and GD get the Ajax contract.
Who noticed the Aussie E7 monitoring Ukraine last night?
3 airframes are not viable. This would result in possibly, one airframe being available for trials, training and ops. We deployed three E-3Ds to Aviano to fly around five times per week. Whoever, made the decision to buy 5, then reduced to three, was not driven by capability, but merely saving an insignificant amount.
The UK makes horrendous procurement decisions that invariably cost more.
Anything with “Boeing” on it? A waste of space. Sweden could have filled this requirement, cheaper, effective and on time. With greater numbers. And before “experts” start on about “inferior” radar? Why do we need top notch? We need numbers/mass in all areas. End of mini rant.
Boeing just provide the airframe which is based on an older 737 variant (before the current 737 Max redesign debacle) and one of the most reliable aircraft ever put into service.
The āmagicā is supplied by Northrop Grummanās MESA radar and associated C2 systems integration. It could just as easily have been on an Airbus airframe – the systemās capabilities are largely platform agnostic.
Do we even have the crews for more than 3?
They don’t have to be manned all the while, fly one while another is out for maintenance.
We need a credible non treasury led review of our defences.
As an arm chair defence observer I can real off several obvious big mistakes.
The challenger 3 fleet needs to be bigger much bigger and the upgrade needs to be faster.
We need more artillery especially long range.
We need more type 26s with the Aussie mod optimised for air defence as we cannot restart the Daring class production line.
Scrap of the T1 Typhoons needs to be reversed and if feasible upgraded to the Mk 2 radar.
We need more wedge tails and maritime patrol aircraft.
We need to get real over diversification targets. Also allowing people with minor health conditions into the forces. Yes keep the A1 for frontline staff but for every 1 front line guy there are many more support. These guys do not need to be A1.
We need the army back up to 100k.
The politicians need to grasp the painful. Nettle that we will not be able to wait for the economy to grow before we start increasing the defence budget.
Can someone tell me how we spend more on defence but country like France who pay less have a 100K plus army. 250 plus modern battle tanks etc etc etc.
Because they sacrifice capability in certain areas. Good looking numbers on paper doesn’t mean highly effective and deployable Armed forces. They also probably don’t pay as well as we do or offer as an attractive package.
30 November 2023
Record high European defence spending boosted by procurement of new equipment
See Defence Data Report link in blue.
https://
eda.europa.eu/news-and-events/news/2023/11/30/record-high-european-defence-spending-boosted-by-procurement-of-new-equipment
Smaller Navy spend, bigger Army spend. Air Force spend aimed at larger number of less capable aircraft.
This is not a criticism of the French Air Force. The USA still fields lots of 4th gen alongside 4.5 gen and 5th gen. They are needed to field bulk.
The French have 200+ 4th and 4,5 gen, we have 140 4.5 and 5th gen. We both just field two types to minimise support costs. Total balance is approx the same as the USA.
Corruption & incompetance.
Buying an additional 3-5 aircraft (if that’s the offer) is one thing then its the additional support to fly/repair and maintain them. Along with that extra support staff to support the aircrew & engineers. its not just spending a few billion in he short term, this is billions in the long term which i don’t think the government want to spend. By then its too late.
As I see it, the biggest problem we have here in the UK is the dishonesty of (all) governments. They seem to believe that pleasing tax cuts are the way forward (always) and that we can afford them. They are being incredibly stupid and short-sighted in their dealings as a consequence (e.g. if I cut taxes it will be the opposition that has to raise them, making them unpopular). What is needed is an honest appraisal of actual threats and consequent needs and then the budget to meet those needs in short order. What we get is politicians telling the military what they cannot have, regardless of loss of capability or effectiveness, and imposing utterly unrealistic budget cuts (hence fewer E7s). And why? Because governments are fundamentally opposed to taxing those who can most afford to be taxed – the wealthiest 50%. I note that only one in one hundred Tory MPs (the current government) has a “working class” background. Rishi Sunak (and wife) have a net wealth in excess of Ā£500 million. If we want capabilities in any area, and particularly the military, then it has to be paid for by taxation. Fix the taxation problem, fix the military problem.
Spot on.
Too few E-7s and too few P-8s. Those two are crucial. Having effectively one Wedgetail in the air at any one time is not enough. Having enough P-8s to barely see the nuclear deterrent to sea is not enough.
Too few Typhoons and too few Lightnings. Stand by for Tempest to come under threat.
See also the gapping of Meteor upgrades, the absence of a SEAD solution, the utter failure of the pilot training pipeline to give us the people to crew the aircraft even if we had enough airframes…
Meanwhile, Wigston’s preoccupation was with freezing the recruitment of straight white males. The buffoon’s virtue-signalling would be funny if wasn’t so dangerous.
We’re in a state and I don’t see either this government or its successor accepting the realities.
Yes the RAF numbers are currently dire when a smaller country like Australia has more than twice as many 5th gen fighters in service, twice as many AWACS, more P8s, the same number of C17s, specialist SEAD platforms (Growlers) and more Hawk trainers than the RAF plus advanced UAVs (Triton and Ghost Bat) and Perigrine ISR capabilities coming online.
Not to say that the RAAF numbers are adequate either for the emerging threats or its capabilities are particularly exceptional but the contrast is a stark reminder.
After reading some damn fine points and reactions by the contributions by people who are on the ball ,it is laid bare the dire straights we are in caused by a crap fxxxxxxg useless government and previous incumbent government Labour, peace is over,bottom line rearm the country
It’s all part of the plan to leave us defenceless in the face of Putin and allow us to be overrun
Typical useless government and badly run woke RAF. Left in 1994 flying on E3 awacs. Poor upper echelon throughout the RAF. Saw this time and again people promoted that were less than average because they were Nice. What a way to run the force.
This appears stupid… we are committed to building 5 radars, the planes are only a small part of the cost. It makes no sense not to build at least 5 E7s. This shows the low priority and lack of foresight that successive governments have had. Recently the Defence Secretary has been talking about the peace dividend being over and we must rebuild our capability. However this is the ongoing reality – not funding properly and stupid penny pinching.