Defence Committee Chair warns over British military decline

Yes, we should start quietly increasing our deployed warheads and missiles as well, 60 not enough to deter the likes of china or Russia on its own and the US will likely become more unreliable as time goes on.

Not only do we need more warheads to saturate an enemies defences but also new and unstoppable methods of delivery. Mobile launchers on wheels, rail lines and suitable merchant vessels. Transport aircraft capable of launching ICBMs out the back door! Perhaps even missiles stationed in orbit. Not forgetting Putin’s idea of nuclear armed unmanned underwater drones, capable of very long deployments.

All to ensure Mutually Assured Destruction remains a terrifying deterrent. That is afterall the only sane use of such weapons.

America is in deep trouble at home and abroad. The UK is wise to think more independently about their defence of the homeland.

I think from memoary that Boris did authorise an increase in warhead numbers and did see a public number. but that is not really the whole story. The real issue is the number that are immidiatley available which is not known publicaly and the match with delivary systems.The argument that the diplomats will be able to see the reavant build up of pressure of tensions would allow time fo a “full load” at sea to be available is where the real problems lie. What is a full load? I sub with a full load? two subs with 1/2 capacity? or two or more at sea with full loads? etc it is difficult with maintaintance taking long periods and maintaiance of what? then add in the crewing problems. In extreme cicumstances could we ever have 4 boats at sea with full loads? I doubt it then add in resupply of vittals at sea issues and we have a real problem.There is only so many cans of baked beans a crew can tollorate

Has the UK ever surged two or more SSBNs for an extended period? Would make sense to practice that capability during peacetime.

Good Sunday SB.
The thing about Nuclear deterrence and practically any other system is it works best when hidden but also in plain sight.

Hence there is absolutely nothing hidden or quietly about the U.K. increasing its number of Warheads by 40%. Quite the opposite in fact.

It was announced and published for the world to see in the IDR of March 2021.

Ignore the waffle and read from page 78 onwards, it makes interesting reading especially the bits about our relationship with France.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/975077/Global_Britain_in_a_Competitive_Age-_the_Integrated_Review_of_Security__Defence__Development_and_Foreign_Policy.pdf

Which kind of blows Frost002 idea of CND madness to bits.
The relationship between the 3 Western nuclear powers is a wee bit complex.
Due to NPT the US keeps France out of certain things and operates a largely integrated Target plan with the U.K.
But the U.K. cooperates with France as well as long as it doesn’t involve any US or derived Nuclear Technology.
I once tried doing a Venn diagram for a presentation and it just doesn’t work. Just think of a 3 link chain, with us as Piggy in the middle.

Guaranteed that the planned increase in warhead inventory was duly noted and logged in Beijing and Moscow, even though evidently it did not create significant discussion in the UK.

Enjoyed the accurate yet amusing description of the relationship between the Western nuclear powers. 😁👍

We have always been the wise and cautious friend to our impetuous cousins across the pond. We might not carry as much clout as we once did, but our judgment is still valued and listened to.

Yes, someone has to hold our beer during our frequent bar brawls! 🍻😆😁😉

Yes, l think you are correct. Remember the total of warheads cap had been lifted to a possible 260.

Yes agree, however that was not an existential threat.

Exactly

Argentina believed (as it turned out correctly) that the islands werent strategically important enough for us to nuke them (although they miscalculated on the not important enough to hit back) and that enough countries backed them (most countries appeared to do in private, even France was questionable for not giving up the codes for the exosets and the US openly attacked us in the UN), and that the UK would find itself completely isolated if they went nuclear, which i suspect would be case. The consequences of nuking another country and the polictical / trade and not to mention mass murder that would arrise is a bit of a big decision too far for most sane people.

It comes back to the classic yes prime minister episode based around when would you push the button, realistically even for the most bollish polictican it’s not going to be to the last moment.

I think people are misunderstanding the purpose of a nuclear deterrent. It isn’t a replacement for conventional weapons and conventional engagement.

It’s hard to know if they really have any value in practice, but we have them (r&d cost of creating them in the first place was the big cost) and it would seem silly to drop the capability now, considering it’s really not that expensive in the grand scheme of things and should it ever be needed it’s better to have than not.

I believe because the UK is the gatekeeper of Europe by sea it is vital we retain a credible deterent. If not it is entirely conceivavble Putin would take out a piece of UK real estate with a tactical nuke. We have already been threatened and the threats are credible. Would the French rush to our aid? NO. Would a Republican administration in 2024? Who knows?
Ukraine show the potential of Russian aggression. Horrendous if they aren’t faced down. These people are animals, reading what they are doing to Ukrainians persons. We can never do business with them again, until the 4th generation.

I hear you but not sure it’s true. The EU had sizeable navy / airforce for the final mile (not literally but you get the point), outside that not sure any nation including the US really has a big enough navy to protect sea routes. To protect sea routes you would require thousands of ships like the RN had pre ww1.

Yes, it’s a total misnomer that the US protects sea routes, like 70 odd destroyers could do that. If you look at the missions of Somalia it took 27 nations navy’s to deter a minimal private threat and the USN was barley involved. The UK coordinated it from Dubai.

Sea lanes are clear because everyone one in the world wants them clear and every nation on earth generally helps police them.

I agree that to dominate the oceans as was done, barring an ongoing submarine threat, from early in WW1, even the USNs fleet numbers might be insufficient. But the pre WW1 RN was surprisingly small. Throughout the 1870s, RN personnel numbers hovered around 60000, when a ship like Warrior needed a crew of 570+. Most of the fleet was kept in ordinary, tied up alongside without even a skeleton crew. Even in 1914 after years of expansion in the race with Germany, personnel total was @140000. The USN is the largest peacetime navy there has ever been with 350000 personnel ( excluding the marine corps) and 100000 + ready reserve.
It could probably sweep the seas clear of any rivals, though China would prove a challenge in its near abroad.
Quite how a now small country like UK should structure its forces is difficult. What we have is a wide spectrum capability about a twelfth the size of the US.

Britain in 1945 had 11 aircraft carriers, 14 battleships, 62 cruisers, 801 destroyers and frigates, 131 submarines and 1319 coastal patrol vessels! Is China or America anywhere near that now?

Someone takes a potshot at the chief deputy? Oh yeah, it’s go time for the duly appointed US Marshal. Could easily turn into the battle of the O.K. Corral, Tombstone, AZ Territory. 🚀✈️🚁🎆

I still feel uncomfortable that Europe (which I define here as EU/European NATO…and I am aware there is an overlap!) cannot (supposedly) defend itself against Russia without the US, particularly given that there are two nuclear weapon nations in Europe and combined armed forces in the hundreds of thousands.

I think we need to get our ‘continental act’ together!

Understood; there are exactly two potential adversaries of any consequence, which European NATO would need assistance in dealing w/ during the foreseeable future: Russia, solely as long as it is able to maintain its nuclear inventory; and the PRC, which probably constitutes THE existential threat to NATO, in addition to every democracy in the Indo-Pacific. Really don’t have any solution to offer save rearmament sufficient to ensure the MAD doctrine. Only required 44 yrs. to convince the Soviets to change course in Cold War I, not certain re autocratic Russian successors in Cold War II. The Chinese are qualitatively different in their pursuit of world domination, their strategy may only truly unfold over decades, conceivably over a century. That will become a truly sporting proposition! 🤔😳

The forseeable future isn’t very forseeable. We have no idea where the existential threat will come from in twenty or thirty years. Perhaps it’ll be a current friend like Turkey or India, perhaps it’ll be someone unthinkably off our radar (look how quickly Turkey has developed its armed forces), perhaps not even a nation state, and perhaps it’ll still be China, Iran or Russia.

We can’t predict the future very well. It’s important to retain quality armed forces so others don’t even try to fill a perceived vacuum. It’s not just about what threatens us now, it’s about deterring the threat of tomorrow.

Si vis pacem para bellum.

To be a real challenger a country will need lost of people, a massive economy and high technology. All these things can be seen well in advance decades if not centuries away. The three biggest countries in the world by the end of the century will be India, Nigeria and Indonesia.

Funnily enough, Nigeria and Indonesia were both in my mind when I said off our radar. So maybe they aren’t all the way off our radar after all.

Absolutely agree w/ the Latin quote; believe it may be the motto of both UK and US special forces? Also enjoy SAS motto, Those who dare, win.” Does anyone have the Latin translation?

👍👍

“Perhaps it’ll be a current friend like Turkey or India”
Not my friends:
Turkey – block NATO membership SE
India – continues to buy ruzzian oil and weapons

With their demographic collapse I don’t think they have a century, I think we are close to peak China now and I think the size of their economy is actually massively over stated.

As long as the US hoods it together it will still probably be the biggest economy into the 22nd century. India is probably the major economic challenger that will over take it.

A very comforting hypothetical scenario, hopefully w/in realm of the plausible. 🤔🤞🤞👍

Well said.

If the Chinese are bent on world domination in military terms, then they are doing it very slowly!…as you suggest.

European NATO has 1.8 million service personal which is more than the US and it has more artillery and tanks with air units capable of defeating any enemy on the planet except the USA.

Russia is the only country which can conceivably invade Europe as China is on the other side of the planet. Russia got 40 miles inside the poorest country in Europe that had little military before turning back.

America guarding Europe is a myth, sure Europe lacks the expeditionary capability the US has and has a focus on territorial defence but then that’s what is needed when you are on the Eurasian land mass. If you live in the western hemisphere you probably want a big navy and expeditionary army.

European NATO also has 8 SSBN of the very highest quality which is more than Russia or China really poses and all its SSBN are concentrated in the Atlantic instead of being spread out in two oceans.

Are you referring to Ukraine as the poorest country in Europe? Because that’s real BS. If you are referring to the width of Transnistria you might be closer, but I think Moldova is still only about the sixth poorest. Andorra and San Marino will have the smallest GDPs. Ukraine is about half way up the European league tables.

If America guarding Europe is a myth, why is SACEUR a US General, why does the US have prepositioned equipment in Europe, why did they commit two Corps to Europe in the Cold War and a massive air force plus earmark reinforcements, and still today have troops positioned in the Baltic states and air force units in the UK?

Because apparently the EU thinking is that it costs money…so why not spend the American’s money? Believe me, regardless of what peop,e think of Trump, his opinions on Europe not paying their own bills are shared by very many people.

It was the only thing Trump said that I ever agreed with.

Bit of a silly comment. Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. They would not have been invaded had they not. MAD has kept the peace amongst nuclear powers for 70+ years. Only non-nuclear powers have had wars. And the nuclear deterrent is not cheap in anyone’s book.

And yet falkands happened and so did plenty of others that were meant to be stopped by MAD. We can’t look into a parrell world where nucs didn’t exist to say either way. Plus the added issue that is impossible to overlook is the US had nucks how much of what has happened is because they have them and how much is connected to us having them. Impossible to tell.

MAD was never designed to stop wars…Nuclear deterrents are essentially there to act a deterrent against the destruction of the nation…essentially they are deterrents against the use of Nuclear weapons or something equally existential…This is very very important the UK deterrent is not a weapon of war…it is an everyone dies button we threaten to use if another nation undertook an attack that wound likely see the destruction of our nation. So nations such as France and Russia still see nuclear weapons as potentially weapons of war…but they are curtailed by the knowledge that others would not see it as such.

no one is triggering MAD because some nasty regime invaded a small set of islands, or even if Russia invaded a large ish country…India and Pakistan have not obliterated each others cities over their never ending border wars. You don’t risk the destruction of humanity over yet another geopolitical power play that went kinetic.

Well said Jonathan.

MAD was meant to deter strategic nuclear war between nuclear powers, only.

Plus Russia took the whole of eastern Europe during a time the US had nukes and they didn’t, and im currently visiting one of them states and boy did they not have a nice time of it. For sure MAD has helped towards world peace but how much it had we can never tell.

We will never be able to tell if it was MAD that stopped the USSR or if it was uncertainty if they could win the conventional war against the US.

Ukraine war might not have happened if they still had nukes but relealistivally where is the threat to the UK mainland, it’s not existed really since ww2. Even in the cold war it was assumed America would nuke Russia well before they made it that far because it would mean going through a large number of us service personnel before hand

The USSR occupied eastern Europe well before the US dropped its only 2 nuclear devices. Thanks to espionage and traitors,it was able to shortcut its own development of nuclear weapons a few years later, effectively the start of MAD.
The primary purpose of nukes is to deter their use by others. Without them, any number of crises could have turned into an all out conventional war between the superpowers. The UK refuses to commit to a guarantee of no first use of nuclear weapons, arguing that circumstances, eg the imminent threat of overwhelming destruction by conventional or other WMDs , might justify their first use.

Have always stated that it would extremely foolhardy to royally p**s off you Brits. The smaller opponent in a fight occasionally wipes the floor w/ the larger. Napoleon and Hitler learned this lesson the hard way. 😆😁😉

Speaking of nuclear espionage, today is the anniversary of the execution of the Rosenbergs.

Tactical nuclear weapons would have been released by the West during the Cold War if West Germany was invaded to the point of being over-run. Anyone’s guess if strategic nuclear release might have followed.

Neither were they Russian weapons, they were soviet weapons, unless of course you are saying that that Soviet Union was actually Russia and that Russia had invaded occupied and placed nunclear weapons on Ukrainian soil ? If you are In fact your right, the Russian soviet did invade and conquer Ukraine…in reality Russia invaded conquered and suppressed Ukrainian culture from the reign of Catherine the great, then it reinvaded as part of the Bolshevik take over of all the territories conquered by the Russian empire.

It was easily with in their power to override those launch codes and Ukraine had the ability to manufacture new weapons.

Russia was never legally established as a successor state to he Soviet Union, it was juts given a pass at the UN.

Russia, the UK, China, France, USA etc-all nuclear powers, all had wars while being so. So that argument is baseless.
Russia guaranteed Ukraines soveriegnty as a condition for Ukr giving nukes up(as did the USA & UK).

Deleted (I should have first read others comments that covered the same ground)

Oh, I thought they were for deflecting the extinction event meteor/asteroid….

Their value is in neutralising the value of other people’s. They are simply an expensive overhead that the current level of destructive versus defensive technology in the world requires us to have. Conventional power-projection capabilities are still required in addition to the strategic systems, hence it should have been accepted after WWII that we would never again be in a position to draw down defence and security spending below a certain level. But trying to explain that to the Treasury is a bit like trying to explain philosophy to a dog.

The big question I think needs answering is what are the realistic odds of them making it through a top tier air defence. Once anti ballistic systems become effective enough the deference vanishes, and they become insanely expensive assets that don’t add any realistic value, since they would only really needed to country the threat from a top tier country, any other isn’t really a threat.

Steve, there simply are no realistic defences against a strategic nuclear deterrence. The US have spent untold billions of pounds on a national defence system that is designed at best to protect against a handful of ICBM warheads.

the simple fact is that to intercept one warhead from an ICBM you need a multistage orbital booster and an exo atmospheric kill vehicle effectively it takes more effort to kill one nuclear warhead than it takes to build and launch an ICBM that can carry 4-5 warheads. Even then the odds are rubbish and they fail more than they succeed. So of a ballistic missile sub with 16 missiles could lob say 62 warheads you would need hundreds ground based interceptors..the U.S. spent 44billion dollars to get 44 launchers this provides the cover needed to stop at best a few warheads from North Korea.

Read an account stating a total in excess of $350B has been invested on R&D, acquisition and O&M to date. Recommend awaiting testing of truly robust system, then soliciting bids via AUKUS Pillar 2. Demand mate’s rates; predict it will still prove to be eye wateringly expensive. 🤔😳😱

Yes the only realistic option is deterrent and threaten to burn everyone if you burn …..sad but it’s the truth. The US has burnt insane levels of money..basically because North Korea is Nuts and you just cannot predict if they will throw a bucket of sunshine even with a deterrent.

Good points.
Wiki says: The [GBD] system has a “single shot probability of kill” of its interceptors calculated at 56%,with the total probability of intercepting a single target, if four interceptors are launched, at 97%. Each interceptor costs approximately $75 million.

When the ussr collapsed and Russian plans for invading Europe peacemeal – it was them nuking countries / battlefield Nikes that did not possess nuclear weapons. So they worked.also bare in mind our performance in Falklands convinced the Russians actually they would lt win if they did invade Europe.

Exactly mate. Saying that having a nuclear deterrent didn’t stop the invasion of the Falklands is like complaining that having a car alarm didn’t stop your house getting broken into. That’s not its purpose.

✊

👍

The purpose of a nuclear deterrent is to deter both nuclear attack and an overwhelming conventional forces attack on one’s homeland.
If deterrence fails, then nuclear weapons, sadly, are available for actual use. This was the case in the Cold War – if the Warsaw Pact invaded and were likely to over-run West Germany, then tactical nuclear weapons would almost certainly have been used.

It always amazed me that so many think Falklands is not strategically important. Panama Canal is as easy to take out as Suez. You don’t even need a bomb. Just a wayward ship.

Yes, loads of people get caught up in its importance to Antarctica which is largely nonsense. However with bases in the carribean which we have the Falklands gives the UK the ability to completely halt any traffic from the Atlantic to the pacific. In major wars blockade has always been the winning tactic and the UK is better set up than any country on planet earth to enforce a blockade.

It’s no accident all those overseas territories were retained. Even the USA would struggle to enforce a global maritime blockade without friendly host nation support.

Trying to support a task force in the Arabian Sea from bases in Guam and Hawaii would not be easy even from them.

MPA is a large base but would the nearby ‘Naval Base’ (Mare Harbour) house or support a sizable maritime blockade force of DD/FFs?

I don’t think so. Single Jetty, a POL installation, don’t recall what else it has.

Bit more than that – 4 jetties, but not sure how long they are or if they can all support larger vessels.

Wiki: “In the latter 2010s, Mare Harbour berths were improved with a £22 million investment.[3] The improvements enhanced the roll-on/roll-off jetty, used by the Ministry of Defence’s Point-class sealift ships which call about once every six weeks,[4] and upgraded other facilities at Mare Harbour, including fire-fighting services.[5]
The facilities now incorporate several berths including: the main jetty, RoRo jetty, west jetty (principally used to berth the Falkland Islands Patrol Vessel HMS Forth) and the main jetty (inner) (used to berth a barge and two harbour tugs from the contracted Netherlands Marine Services company Van Wijngaarden). The British Antarctic Survey ship, RRS Sir David Attenborough and Royal Navy’s ice patrol ship, HMS Protector, use the port during the regional summer while the Falklands Government patrol vessel, MV Lilibet, may also call at the port periodically for fueling. Troops from the Royal Logistic Corps (460 (Port) Troop) provide cargo handling services at the port”.

Good info, thanks for that. I’ve not studied Mare Harbour on GE for a while. There are interesting installations on the road north to MPA and from Stanley to MPA. Was aware of the RLC Troop, assume a Det from 17 PMR RLC.

Recall seeing a T45 berthed, unsure?

Akrotiri Mole, on Cape Gata, is another little known overseas UK maritime facility.

A frigate or destroyer periodically visited Mare Harbour for a few weeks ‘to send a message’ to the Argentinians.

Many rumours about a S/M periodically sailing in Falklands waters but of course it would never draw alongside in Mare Harbour.

Depends if it has a Z or X berth, don’t recall that location having such.

Stanley harbour has hosted large fleets in the past. But at the end of the day the fleet running a blockade only needs to be big enough to interdict commercial shipping and counter any force sent to take the islands or knock out the blockade force. Airbases can do almost all of that on their own with a few OPV’s. An SSN in the area can probably stop any force trying it’s retake the islands especially if backed by naval strike aircraft. Realistically the only conceivable nation you would be talking about would be China. How big a fleet could China deploy against the FI in a global war. Probably not much.

Fair points. Not many think of the Falklands as giving the West/UK a significant strategic advantage.

LOL…we need ships to “halt traffic.”

The UK does Not make nuclear threats against non-Nuclear states, unlike ruZZia!

Our deterrent is not there for that. It’s designed to be a deterrent against the potential destruction of the UK not against war.

It did however, have a rather significant impact on the inclination of France and the US to cooperate with our efforts to ensure Argentina’s defeat by conventional means.

More significantly…neither did our ownership of a large navy, reputable army and marines, and strategic bombers deter the Argentinian colonialists.

Planning to cut our navy drastically, our presence in the S Atlantic & having retired our fixed wing carrier is what made it seem they could seize the Islands. That’s why Sir John Nott resigned over it after Argentine forces invaded. People forget that Magaret Thatchers policies led to that invasion.They planned sale of Hermes & Invincible & withdrawal of Endurance.

I fear the Treasury is holding back on both RAF and the Army as they will be less valuable if future threats come from the Far East. Conventional weapons such as warships are the most likely to see a notable increase to challenge Chinese naval expansion. The majority of our defence budget will go on more new hulls by the mid-thirties. The RAF should also receive some benefits in support of naval patrols hence, maybe more Wedgetail and Prosiden airframes? Sadly, the Army will continue with its current purchase plans and even the 148 CH2 may not see an increase. A more transportable Army and increasingly specialised will be its mandate as little else would be required in the Far Eastern region. In regard to nuclear our new ballistic boats will continue to offer a considerable deterrent once all hulls are in service.

I’m not sure it’s sad the army is not getting an uplift in fact is cause for celebration.

The last land threat in Europe has completely disappeared. Since 1914 we have had to keep on oversized army for one threat or another.

China is the only conceivable threat now so it’s back to building big navy’s again which we are really good at. Verses building big army’s which we are very mediocre at.

Which service has borne the brunt of warfighting since 1945, Counter-Insurgency, Counter-Terrorism, Peace-keeping, Internal Security? It’s the army. Yet you celebrate its emasculation.

Try telling Ukraine that the last land threat in Europe has completely disappeared! Russia’s armed forces have not disappeared – quite the opposite. Also if and when the Russo-Ukraine war ends, do you seriously think that Russia would never again threaten smaller countries in Europe? They were defeated in Afghanistan by the Mujahadin but came back time and again to attack neighbours. We are NATO members and the Euro-Atlantic area should be our priority.

You wish to grow a large navy so that we can face up to China on the other side of the globe, yet the US don’t see that is what our navy should be doing.

No-one is asking for a large army, just not a tiny one.

I celebrate the lack of need for it, that’s a success. The army is still there and we should retain a high quality deployable force not a large force.

Euro Atlantic should be our priority and the best way to defend the euro Atlantic is to keep China bottled up in the Indo pacific.

We don’t need to guard Germanys eastern boarder anymore.

Does China threaten the Euro-Atlantic region?

Not yet but it has designs on an Atlantic base in Africa. The CCP’s very clear goal is to be a world hegemony so at some point if un checked it will look to deploy in the euro Atlantic area.

I agree, sad to see the land forces reduce but if the Far East becomes a serious future focus then a considerably larger RN will be essential. China has begun to broaden its naval stretch and the UK will need ships to shadow its activities wherever they turn up. Air assets will be needed to monitor Chinese operations and this will be both land and sea-based aircraft. Any adventurism by Chinese land forces should still not warrant heavy British armour in theatre, as the numbers would create substantial logistical issues and unlikely to be called upon by Japan or Korea. However, smaller and faster light armour in the hands of specialised land groups could be a strong possibility, in cooperation with Australian and New Zealand special forces. Sadly, the UK Army will remain roughly where it should be in 2030 a formidable land force with modern equipment but not in the quantities of the past.

Does the US Pacific Fleet need a single British carrier group to ‘help out’ in the Far East?

Hmmm…agree that the RAF, RN, RM and some specialist Army formations are UK’s trump cards. However, it is somewhat sobering to realize that there were over 300,000 BEF troops evacuated from the beaches of Dunkirk during the fall of France; a formation that was critiqued at the time for being too small for purpose. A force 4X larger than proposed British Army. Hope the financial masters at HMG Treasury permit the Army to retain enough troops and materiel to defend Britain and NI. 🤔🤞

That’s true but it’s worth pointing out that the entire BEF which was small by the standard of the day is a larger force than the USA could deploy today. Army’s have been getting smaller for a long time and no power no matter how large can really deploy much of a force compared to the domestic combatants. If ww3 had kicked off oh would be the likes of west Germany and Turkey deploying the bulk of the man power with the US providing the naval and air assets.

That BEF was also built in the spaces of two years, lost all its equipment and was rebuilt again in two years. The navy we had in 1939 was basically the navy we had to fight most of the war with.

Army’s are quick to build navy’s take decades. Also it’s often much easier to rapidly expand a small capable professional army than to reform a large cumbersome conscript army.

“Arm(ies) have been getting smaller for a long time…” The probable exception to that statement is the PLA; food for thought when developing future force level plans. 🤔

Actually the PLA has been massively reduced in head count over the past 10 years. Quality is now emphasised over quantity.

Wiki states 975K currently on active duty; 500K in reserves! Gulp!?!

Yep, the BEF in WW2 comprised 10 manouevre divisions and three ‘Labour’ divisions and much of our best equipment.

Of course our army needs to do far more than defend GB and NI.
We need to be prepared to defend the BOTs, especially the Falklands.
We need also to deploy troops on Alliance operations (warfighting, peacekeeping ops, stability ops and deterrence ops) wherever that might be (in the recent past that has been Saudi Arabia/Iraq, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Cyprus, Estonia, Poland, Mali etc).

Agreed, simply attempting to highlight the irreducible minimum land warfare requirement, should UK adopt isolationist (or Fortress UK) strategy under a future government.

Even hard-Left Labour governments have not rowed back on ‘Global Britain’ but there is a first time for everything!

I don’t think the treasury is holding back anything from particular services.
The defence budget has been spent fully by each dept and then some. The wish list of needed items is longer than Santa’s list.
It’s funny when looking at American forums and they moan about cuts, lack of numbers, bad decisions etc. The same items most people have issues with.
Looks like no matter how big the budget there’s always something else.

I believe they are holding back as the new class of destroyer is slowly coming into focus and I’m sure we will see at least eight and not all Type 45s being decommissioned. With around ten destroyers and hopefully ten Type 26 plus the possibly another four Type 31 this would allow for greater stretch and a useful contribution to joint international operations. If current naval dispositions are an indicator of how the future RN will develop, then we don’t have enough new hulls without the need to seriously look at increasing the planned vessels currently being built. I have not seen any indication of the USA declaring that the Far East is not in Britain’s military interests.

What does a more transportable Army look like? An army with lighter vehicles that can be airlifted – or a greater number of high capacity airlifters or Point class vessels?
Not sure any of that is on the cards.

Boxer weighs over 36.5t at combat load-out, Ajax about 40t, CR3 maybe 75t. Even the lighter vehicles are very heavy – JLTV if we buy it is 11-12t. Jackal is 7-8t.

C-130 has gone. Limited numbers of C-17s. A400M cannot carry Boxer without module seperation.

However Point class sealift is surely good – each one able to carry ‘130 armoured vehicles and 60 trucks and ammunition or 8,000 tonnes of vehicles’. But fleet is only 4 – assume 2 or 3 might be available for a new operation? Is that enough?

What qualifies as light is a moot point, but I doubt it will be CH3 or heavy artillery. The sea bourne delivery will be a given and additional hulls may be required.

I certainly don’t consider CR3 and heavy artillery to be light!

No official definition for armour weight categories, I think.

The nuclear deterrent has to provide enough destruction to put off anyone using there’s first.
If the a country thinks it can knock the U.K. back to the Stone Age but the same won’t happen to there country the deterrent isn’t enough.
That really depends how nuts the people in charge of nuclear countries are

Also depends on how large they are, 60 warheads won’t knock China out of the game medium term.

Especially if they know we won’t target cities or atleast believe we won’t.

Perhaps as SOP, but reasonably convinced UK would be able to deliver more warheads (probably a multiple of baseline), w/in the foreseeable future via Dreadnought class, given sufficient advance warning. MIRVed buses loaded up, plus ‘conveniently’ overlapping CASD patrols. Sheer speculation on my part, no definitive knowledge.

With sufficient warning we can probably get 3 boats in the water with 36 Trident D5 warheads able to fire 180 warheads or so.

The integrated plan for NATO counter strike by the US and UK probably requires 600 warheads to take out Russians nuclear capability.

60 deployed warheads just lets you take out cities and. I can’t see the UK ever doing that even if an aggressor took out UK cities.

The deterrent is sized to take on a country the size of Russia but China has 10 times the population. Xi might think they can’t take loses and still keep rolling.

🤞🤞🙏

Agreed, but everyone needs to monitor scum-sucking, slimeball ChiComs in the rear view mirror, approaching rapidly (1500 warheads projected by 2035).

Will be interesting to see if they attempt to exceed the US and Russian deployed number of approximately 1500. I very much hope not although it’s difficult to argue that China should have less than the US or Russia. There is no treaty obligation for them to do this and the movement of the US and Russia coming down to meet other powers has very much stopped.

The US triad is still far superior to anything they have and will hopefully remain that way.

Uncertain how interested US will be in maintaining current treaty obligations after formal expiration of New START in 2026, given the ChiComs’ aggressive expansion plans.

The US strategic triad will remain relevant largely as the result of executing a $1+T modernization investment plan. In reality, defense is indeed a somewhat expensive proposition.

You really hate those ChiComs! Is that just a US thing? My hate is reserved for the Russians, who actually invade their neighbours and commit wanton brutal acts against innocent people and their towns.

Believe the ChiComs constitute the longer term, existential threat to all. Deem that Russians are essentially an organized crime syndicate; believe democracies can collectively deal w/ criminal institutions.

Agreed. And hope so.

Remember Star Trek: Next Generation? Really conceptualize ChiComs as the Borg Collective,…’Resistance is Futile. You will be assimilated.’. Believe Taiwanese have this as a recurring nightmare. 🤔😳😱

fair enough, but we don’t have tactical nukes, a risk to think any country would win a first strike. apparently if india and pakistan exchange nukes it would massively mess up the worlds climate for some time, we all loose if it kicks off.

True that we no longer have tactical nukes, but we used to.

The reason we do not restrict strategic nuclear release to second strike is to complicate an enemy’s decision making if they contemplated launching a massively overwhelming conventional attack on us.

No Uk PM is going to sanction an SLBM launch with all the MAD risk that goes with 1 of those popping out of the ocean. Mrs T might have but she didn’t need to because she had more proportionate options I know because I spent many a foggy morning with an SLR in hand because the RAFP couldn’t see the bomb dump wire

We won’t shoot first but it is the sure knowledge that we can deliver 60 buckets of sunshine that keeps the crazies in check.

It is a sad fact that nuclear weapons are in the hands of less and less stable and rational regimes.

Deterrence, both conventional and nuclear is valuable.

👍

The beauty of our uk system is it’s retaliatory only. PM out of the loop apart from writing a letter to the 4 sub captains. The scenario is uk has been wiped out, uk sub decides how to proceed, given all crew have lost their families and friends.

I saw a program years ago where the letter from the PM was mentioned, that was before the target coordinates were removed from the missiles. The deterrent factor appears less and less as it’s no longer mutually assured destruction. The US system of launch orders communicated via TACAMO vertically guarantees a response a valid launch code. We are spending billions on a deterrent where the crew decides if they want to respond. The lack of communication between UK command and the boat and the lack of pre programmed targets adds level after level of doubt re response. It leads to a situation where if the uk only is targeted but not the US then US SSNs could be ordered to attempt to hunt down the UK boat. I see no beauty in that system

Stokey, good to think of all the possibilities. we assume there will be no communication after a massive nuke strike on UK. the UK Sub has time to assess before striking back and yes a tiny maybe that yanks ( or french ) are chasing them down, maybe they should war game that one.

 :wpds_cool: 

And the Mod procurement control system – no one person in overall charge when an experienced project manager with engineering qualifications was needed. Allowing army officers with only a couple of years to go before retirement to demand a heavier vehicle. Allowing the contractor to buy cheap chinese steel for the hulls that failed the weldability spec and then letting the MoD to sign off on it. Transfering production from Spain to Wales, baking in further delays. Really crap quality management from the start, not to forget piss poor in-process production quality control

With the benefit of hindsight we should have been talking to BAe about their excellent CV90. How we ended up with General Dynamics is part of the disaster. BAe are an excellent company and all we needed was some private sector commercial skills in the MoD to negotiate with them. Unfortunately, whilst I am quite sure that the MoD procurement team were expensively educated and could doubtless speak the dead language Latin, GD could not

Scimitar was a good vehicle, but it wasn’t the right vehicle for its role. A heavier armoured vehicle and tanks were better for its role in BAOR. Every other NATO country at the time used tanks and APC or similar. The only other country to use CVRT combined it with Leopard tanks.
CVRT came at the wrong time, it would’ve been a great vehicle to form a rapid deployment light armoured brigade.
It needs a replacement for 16x as well.

It’s not that much larger than other armoured recce vehicles. As long as the issues are sorted, it’ll be a good vehicle.
It’ll fit less well in its role than otherwise because of Boxer being used instead of a tracked IFV.

Scimitar was a great vehicle for many years but it should have been replaced after 25 years ie in c.1996!
Tanks are not better for the armd recce role! Louis, what are you talking about? Tanks have an entirely different role.

Recce vehicles should have very low signature, be highly agile, have an excellent sensor package (and I favour a telescopic mast to carry some of those sensors), excellent secure comms suite – and appropriate weaponry.
It should always be remembered that the British Army conducts recce by stealth rather than by fighting – ideally our recce vehicles and people are never seen by the enemy.

Not sure why you say CVR(T) came into service at the wrong time. Scimitar and Scorpion provided a far better recee capability than long-in-the-tooth Saladin armoured cars, Ferret Scout Cars. Their agility and pace were legendary, they crossed terrain that was impassable to a man on foot, and had very low physical signature.

Interesting debate as to what should have replaced CVR(T) in the mid-90s. I would certainly not have thought of a vehicle the size and weight and cost of Ajax, and lacking mast mounted sensors.

16x clearly requires a very different recce vehicle in its Pathfinder Platoon and in the recce platoons of para and air assault units. In recent years they have used WMIK Landrovers and Jackals. Clearly they will continue to need lightweight vehicles with some degree of protection.

Not tanks in isolation, but tanks as well as other recce vehicles.
As I said before, every other NATO country did it in BAOR, currently the US still integrates M1 Abrams in recce formations.
The firepower issue was partly covered by Striker.
Recce assets also have to probe enemy defenders and actually gauge the enemies strength. Especially without air superiority and very few satellites at the time, it becomes all the more important.
For Britain, with MBTs being less mobile than other countries, it was of course less viable.

Britain has always done recce differently to the US, but the distinct differences are much less dismounts, and no tanks.

My point about it coming in at the wrong time was more referring to a lightweight armoured vehicle with 30mm cannon was wasted being deployed in Europe.
If BAOR hadn’t existed, CVRT would’ve been an excellent basis for a rapidly deployable light armoured brigade.

In the mid 90s, a CVRT size vehicle would’ve been the best replacement, as the militaries view shifted more globally.

16x does need a proper CVRT replacement, unless a 30mm cannon can be fitted on a jackal or other vehicle. AEI had such a weapon but I’m not sure of the state of that after its sale to a Turkish company.

Thanks Louis.

BAOR, British Army of the Rhine was of course the British Army’s contribution in West Germany (and Berlin) in the Cold War.
I served in BAOR four times – 1976 with 2SG in Munster, 1982 with 4 Armoured Workshop, 1983-84 with 21 Engineer Regiment and 1990-91 with 28 Engineer Regiment. At no time did we use our tanks, be they Chieftains or Challenger 1s to conduct recces in BAOR. You are right that CVR(T) Striker was in the Formation armd recce regts (having previously bizarrely been issued to the RA, to enable long range (4km) anti-tank shoots in forward areas – the recce wagons (Scorpion and Scimitar) were of course still doing recce by stealth.

As for the other nations in Germany, be it those in NORTHAG (Corps from Holland, Germany and Belgium, in addition to 1 (BR) Corps) or CENTAG (Corps from FRG and USA plus Bde from Canada) – I have no knowledge of their use of tanks to conduct recce.

I do think that the Soviets used to integrate tanks into recce units, as they conducted recce by fighting, but we conduct recce by stealth and there is nothing stealthy about a 72 tonne MBT.

I take your word for it that the US integrates M1 Abrams in their recce units – I thought their heaviest vehicle conducting recces was the M3 Bradley CFV.

I don’t agree that CVR(T) was the wrong choice for BAOR – it was designed from an army requirement in the 1960s for a recce vehicle that would be as useful in BAOR (where most of them deployed) as on expeditionary operations. At 8 tonnes they were heavier than the vehicles they replaced and were better armed and better armoured than their predecessors.
Of course it was never expected or intended that they would engage in firefights with other vehicles (that was not their role) but might have to use their cannon to lay down defensive fire and extricate if spotted most likely by enemy recce or light enemy screen forces.

They also got excellent reviews from the Falklands war and one survived a landmine explosion, the crew being unscathed, the vehicle being extarcted by a Chinook, and quickly returned to service after REME attention.
In the first Gulf War, Scimitars in the desert found themselves lacking cover and coming up against all manner of enemy vehicles including T-62s. Scimitars successfully penetrated T-62 frontal armour with their RARDEN cannons, defeating the tanks. In Afghanistan Scimitars successfully provided firepower support to Jackals.

16x Pathfinder Platoon seems happy with Jackal and before that WMIK LR – I don’t know what they will get next, perhaps some form of JLTV.

Cheers Graham,
My Grandfather (on my German side) served in the Bundeswehr in the 1970s and 1980s first in a recon battalion as a signaller (I’d have to ask him which unit), and then later on became a doctor but I don’t know too much about his career as a doctor. At that time they were using Leopard 1s and a mix of wheeled APC’s, with M113s and trucks for the signal platoon.

They made up for the lack of specialist recon equipment on a Leo 1 with a radar platoon on Fuchs.
Both Luchs with a 20mm cannon and Fuchs were amphibious and had quite a high road speed.
At the time recce was also used as a screening force to determine axes of advance and to delay the Soviets long enough for the bulk of the corps to deploy. I can only assume this was even more important for the British later on in the 1980s, with 19 brigade having to deploy straight to the frontline from the UK.
Would a heavier armoured vehicle not have been better in such a scenario? Of course the 105mm on the Leo 1 was obsolete at that point, but I believe they were planning to move onto the Leo 2. Recce units were last on the list to receive it with Panzer brigades first, and Panzergrenadier brigades second, so I don’t believe any did receive them.
Even so, with 3 Shock Army having the better vehicles- T72, T80, Striker was the only way for a British recce regiment to reliably destroy a tank.
Additionally, CVRT would’ve been vulnerable to pretty much every vehicle mounted weapon the Soviets had, whereas despite Leo 1 being lightly armoured for an MBT it would’ve shrugged off BTR and BMP rounds.

I wasn’t suggesting BAOR used Chieftain in a recce role. It wouldn’t have made sense anyway as (compared to Leo 1) it was heavier and slower.

I don’t know if the Pathfinders ever had CVRT, but the Airborne brigade has had an attached CVRT squadron for many decades. A domestic vehicle is unrealistic as numbers would be small, but a small order of LuWa would surely be a large uplift in capability. It’s only 4.5 tonnes, with a 27mm cannon, ATGM variants and up to Stanag level 5 with add on armour. If similar dimensions to Wiesel, 2 would be able to fit in a Chinook. If the Marines were interested, 1 could fit inside a Merlin with lots of room to spare. The issue there would be the ramp which can only hold 3 tonne. If that could be strengthened to 4.5 tonnes, the RM could have a Light armoured vehicle. It could also probably fit two on an LCVP. With LCU MK.10 being very slow, firepower could quickly be transported to the beach- with RM transitioning to more of a raiding force, time is of the essence.
LuWa would add a vehicle with decent firepower that is resistant to medium calibre weapons to 16x and 3x.

I had a look at Wiki: “The Spähpanzer Luchs (English: Scout Armored Car “Lynx”) is a German 8×8 amphibious reconnaissance armoured fighting vehicle (Spähpanzer) that was in service from 1975 to 2009 with the German Army, who used 408 in their armoured reconnaissance battalions. It was developed by Daimler-Benz[1] between 1968 and 1975, replacing the M41 and the Schützenpanzer SPz 11-2 Kurz”

So I have learnt something from you and Wiki – that Germany used tanks (M41, then Leo1, I guess) alongside a conventional recce vehicle in the armoured recce battalion.
It si very much a different philosophy to fight for information rather than to conduct recce by stealth as we Brits have traditionally done. I am used to the former and can only see advantages.

We certainly had a Screen forward of the Main Defensive positions in BAOR but that would have been just the RAC formation recce regiments (also known as medium recce), primary task to remain concealed and to identify strenth, dispositions and direction of Warsaw Pact thrusts. They could create delay be calling down fire from artillery or anti-tank effect from Strikers – and still remain concealed until it was time to draw back.

Many troops would have had to move to Germany to complete the 1(BR) Corps Orbat – they would move during TTW and hopefully not after the WP had crossed the Inner German Border. 19x would have had to deploy from Colchester to jon 3 Armd Div. 2 Inf Div would have to deploy from many locations in the UK. Many other units would have to deploy from the UK too.

Our tanks were all concentrated en masse in the armoured brigades – we had none spare to deploy forward – and that would have conflicted with the philosophy of our stealthy Screen.

CVR(T)s were not vulnerable – the enemy would not have seen them in general. They operated by stealth and moved in cover – for much of the time they would have been stationary scrimmed up on the edge of a wood line. They would have bugged out rearwards if enemy came near.

Pathfinder Pl always had the lightest vehicles commensurate with the light equipment 16AA Bde operated – from stripped down 1/4 ton landrovers in the 70s onwards on to WMIKS, RWMIKS and Jackals – PF Pl primarily marked DZs for the bde but could do ground recce too.

When air assault or parachuting was not the primary means of operating for 16x, then D Sqn of HCR with Scimitars was chopped to 16x and were deployed to Iraq in 2003 with 16x and again to Afghanistan with 16x in 2006. Not sure what will happen when Scimitar is replaced by Ajax – that would be totally wrong for 16x.

When the UK worked with the US on TRACER I think the American penchant for heavy recce vehicles (Bradley M3 CFV) won through to we Brits and hence Ajax will be a heavyweight recce vehicle.

I guess it’s a doctrinal difference. It might have had something to do with the overall worse training of the Bundeswehr at the time. Interestingly Germany now has the small, lightly armed Fennek for armoured recce, with the British now using a heavier armoured vehicle so there seems to be a switch in doctrine.
I thought I’d just correct the service of my Grandad. He was in a recce battalion first and then some sort of EW battalion. Becoming a doctor was after the army- it would’ve been a strange career change within the army!

19th brigade swapped with 33 armoured brigade in the mid-late 1980s, with 19x to be deployed in the southern sector of 4xx.
I suppose it would’ve been quite a rush if the USSR had launched a surprise attack, but that would’ve been quite unlikely due to most of their reserves being a few weeks away.

5th Airborne Brigade also had a squadron of CVRT attached. Airdropping armoured vehicles seems to have fallen out of use.
LuWa being quite a light vehicle could surely easily be adapted to be airdropped but Germany doesn’t seem to have that requirement. US M10 also had the airdrop requirement cut although it’s a much heavier vehicle.

1 RI seems to be providing 16x recce with Jackal and Foxhound. Maybe this will see a further doctrinal shift with greater numbers of dismounts in a recce regiment.

If only Tracer had been a success, we wouldn’t be stuck in this mess right now. 2006 was when a CH2 was fitted with a smoothbore cannon to prove it could be done, of course that wasn’t pursued. AS90 could’ve had a 52 calibre gun 15 years ago, Boxer could’ve been in service a decade ago and the first Warrior 2 vehicles could be entering service now. The Army is in a right mess, which will be difficult to escape from. Everything being ordered at the same time leaves no future for the industry, which is probably why the Boxer order is being built so slowly.

Many different vehicles have been used by various countries for recce – Nazi Germany and the USSR used motorcycles as part of their recce suite.
Some use very light vehicles and you mention Fennek. US has had a medium weight veh (M3 Bradley CFV) as has Canada (Coyote LAV).
I think Scimitar was ideal back in the day for our ‘recce by stealth’ philosophy (it was not expected that the enemy would see any or very many of such vehicles whilst they were on task).
Tracer was a promising project and it would have made for an affordable vehicle with much development work having risk shared with the US. I think it was UK who broke away to focus on FRES.
I am no great fan of Ajax as you have gathered. But it is now nearing the end of its gestation and we must embrace it.
The whole British AFV inventory is a total mess – I think CR3 will be OK but it is costing a lot and there will be too few and will take too long to field.
Sadly I am also no fan of Boxer for the AI; it is a vehicle for Mech Inf.

I always liked the Fox myself! I read it was top heavy though? Is that correct?

Fox (1975-1994) looked good and it seemed to be a good idea to produce a 4×4 with more firepower than the FSC which it largely replaced, and it replaced the Saladin armoured car. It was certainly fast (65mph) and well armed with its 30mm RARDEN. Not so sure about the armour – it was aluminium and could not protect against 0.50 HMG, although it could protect against lighter SAA and artillery splinters.
You could fit three in a Herc.
I believe it was scrapped because it was top-heavy and several flipped over when cornering too fast, with some fatalities, I believe.
After withdrawal of Foxes, the Turrets went to some 13 x 432s in the Berlin Infantry Brigade and also to produce Sabre CVR(T)s from Scorpion hulls, many of which went to BATUS.

Cor, it all comes flooding back. The turrets on the 432s, I’d forgotten them!

Not to mention replacing older people as they retire and aren’t being replaced due to declining birth rates.

You mean, replacing white British populations as they die.
Ethnic minorities have higher birth rates, and?

Plenty of those immigrants will be white, too, if that’s what you’re worried about.

Our current birth rate is 1.56 births per woman; below the replacement rate, meaning that we’re an ageing population. Without the younger immigrants we’d be facing a declining population of working-age people to fund the ever-growing elderly population.

There are currently more over-65s than there are under-16s, so we have a declining pool for the workforce – fewer people of working age, contributing to the economy and paying taxes. Immigration is keeping the working-age population somewhat steady, or even growing (albeit less than the growth of the elderly population).

Those higher birth rates also mean more children who will grow up to become British workers. The children and the grandchildren of immigrants will be British, and working, and funding the economy.

This is a problem much of the Western world faces; birth rates have declined so much that without immigration we’d be facing serious demographic problems sooner or later. Japan’s facing it, too, in the next few decades.

Hi Steve. Yes, thanks for the details. I appreciate the birth rate issue.
For the record, my father was an immigrant too, hence to my name. Unlike many though, he has integrated.

500,000 that follows 500,000 that follows 500,000 and on and on, year on year, till?
No end state? 100 million population perhaps?
My youth was a population of 56 million, nearer 70 million now.
Where do we put a city the size of Birmingham every 4 years?
Let me guess, they replace all the Brits dying off, yes?
And that’s the ones we know of, including those who entered illegally with orange life jackets courtesy of France.

Although I do agree a full scale review is needed into defense procurement as it has gone badly wrong across all services and continues to do so, doing the same things and expecting different results is definition of madness.

Mass low wage migration is probable drag on any economy , not much tax revenue from wages or grey economy. Plus housing schooling pressures. Difficult when an economy was rising how will there be a good outcome when in stagnation.

Name a single major economy that doesn’t rely heavily on low wages to keep their economy going? The only ones are the likes of Denmark/norway etc which rely on decent government decisions on how fossile fuel was used. They are however all the smaller economies by overall size. Clearly we would all rather live in those countries as the overall average wealthy of the people is way higher than in the UK or US etc.

Exactly.

Do you mean founded by the British Empire and the USA

It’s not an easy question to answer, being on the UN security council etc gives us a voice, but it’s impossible to know if it’s taken seriously or how much influence it actually has. We would only know if our overseas interests were threatened and how the other countries would act.

Recently examples that concern me are falkands (2018) or Chagos Archipelago (2019) the UN has voted against the UK on them, showing we failed to influence enough countries to stop it. Who knows if we didn’t want to play the polictical capital over them or just couldn’t influence others. Same with the trade deals we haven’t got a single one so far that is better than we had.

We are one of the 5 main voices on the UN Security Council and our view is of course taken seriously – with that voice, we have the power of veto on any weighty UN Resolution. In general we are not using that voice to talk about parochial UK-only issues – they are about matters of global concern.

We can’t win every debate & every point. No country can. I think the 2018 resolution was merely a recurring one that UK and Argentina should continue to have talks on sovereignty – no big deal.

Why do you say we haven’t got a single trade deal? Wiki: “As of May 2023, the United Kingdom has 38 active free trade agreements with nations and trade blocs, covering 99 countries and territories. Five of these are ‘new’ trade agreements: Australia, New Zealand, the European Union, Japan, and an enhanced agreement with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The remaining 33 are continuity agreements.The UK has further arrangements covering 17 British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.
In addition, the UK has also reached an agreement to accede to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which it is expected to join in July 2023.”

Not quite it would be 100% and the consequences for the West would be horrendous.
If I were a seer I would say the future of our century will be about resources and ownership. And I have a long held suspicion that is what is behind Mr Putins land grab in Ukraine. It also explains why the BRICS Group turn a silent face away from his actions.
Grain, Sunflower Oil, Fertiliser and rare earth metals.

Hope Europe war gaming what happens if Russia collapses after putin , would image an exodus to Europe and rightfully they should pay for Ukraine rebuild.

When you threaten civilian nuclear power stations there’s a possibility of intervention.

Russia has threatened the civilian nuclear power stations (and occupied at least one) since Feb 2022.

Russia attacked by shelling many buildings at the Zaporizhzhia plant – the largest in Europe – on 3 March 2022.

It didn’t prompt intervention.

Great post. Bravo.

Yes, despite our economic and diplomatic “collapse” and our military apparently being “useless”, nations all over the world want to build fighter jets with us, sign up to have us in an alliance with them and offer us free trade deals. Even sleepy Joe was forced by his own state department to reiterate the special relationship and through as an interim trade agreement.

We are so useless now the Russians want to develop a virus that only targets Anglo Saxons.

You have made 15,000 comments here. That is some serious time spent trying to impress the other 10 people on this site.

Indeed, one has to go somewhere to enjoy ones passion chatting with like minded with similar interests, over the 5 or 6 years I’ve been on this forum.

What’s your excuse for being here beyond spreading the propaganda your handlers provide you? If you’re here in a few months time I’ll be amazed.

Now that’s a child like sad comment! Why you hear, to impart your vast military knowledge or experience? Nope, didn’t think so.

Good post. Agree no point in speculating re exact nature of cuts yet. Finland and hopefully Sweden will strengthen Nato in Europe significantly. Poland has assumed something of a leadership role with its massive rearmament. I doubt Ukraine will join nato any time soon but I expect it to be offered EU membership and aid for reconstruction and build up of armes forces once the current conflict stabilises. Germany does seem to be getting with the program. They can build tanks for everyone. The UK, France and the US need to drive influemce strategy against Russia and China in Africa. Blinken has gone to China to try and thaw relations. India and Brazil need work.

Succinct summary. 👍

Have read several accounts re a groundswell of support w/in NATO for the adoption of a minimum 2.5% threshold for defense spending. Although the Poles and the Baltics may be forceful advocates for a 3% threshold, not certain whether the major players may not consider that a ‘Bridge Too Far’ ala Op Market Garden?

Morning Graham, thx. I did know that the 73k decision was taken a while ago but I hadn’t really clocked the date. Many questioned it, and the planned cuts to armour, at the time. Ukraine is certainly focussing minds. Putin not only has ambitions to rebuild the ‘greater Russia’ but also to bring about a new world order in which the nations of Africa and South America look to Moscow ( and Beijing) for cultural and political inspiration and for economic support. Others may disagree but I reckon the IR refresh was prescient. The NATO armour in Europe will come from Poland, (Ukraine), Finland, Sweden and hopefully Germany. Our main contribution to NATO should be the RN and Atlantic; and East of Suez also. Somehow working with our partners we need to get Wagner forces out of Africa by all diplomatic and military means. African nations should not be turning to Russia or China to defeat Islamic extremist forces. So an expanded navy, expeditionary / ASW / Global and a direction for the army of special forces / heavy armour down – Ajax/ Boxer/ Coyote/ drones / helos up is looking like the right direction to me.

Why do you say ‘probably’ about Germany fielding tanks to the ‘Central Front’ – they committed thousands in the Cold War and today have more than we have (266 vs 227) and will have a greater diffrential when we come down to 148.

The following have a greater number of tanks than UK and Germany – USA, Turkey, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Spain – however quality and modernity is another issue. Let us not forget France with 222 tanks.

Soon after refreshing our ‘armoured’ div with CR3, MFS (Archer), Boxer and Ajax, you want us instead to leave the Continentals to do ‘heavy metal’ in Europe and focus on RN in the Atlantic and East of Suez. 3 Div can certainly play their part in the defence of Europe.

I agree that the West should be more active in Africa. The US set up a regional command there a few years ago, but it doesn’t receive much publicity.

Morning Graham, thx for the tank numbers. The French number is interesting. It looks like the ‘benchmark’ number is about 200 per nation. My ‘probably’ for Germany is just a recognition of European geography. Before 1990 Berlin was on the NATO ‘front line’; Berlin to Lviv is the same distance as Calais to Berlin. Its another 500km to Kyiv. Poland plans to acquire about 1000 K9s and several hundred Abrams. They are the new front line. I would expect Ukraine to arm themselves to similar levels when the current conflict stabilises.
It’s not that I particularly want to ‘leave the continentals’ to do all the heavy lifting – we should contribute. Historically and culturally we are a European nation. I’m just saying there’s a lot more to do now; what is the most sensible contribution we can make? The Chinese are using their fishing fleet and cheap money to expand into east and west Africa and even the Caribbean. Nigerian fishermen are complaining they can’t earn a living and feed their families because of Chinese super trawlers. I’ve no idea whether 148 or 220 is the right number of MBT for the UK. But I’m pretty sure 19 isn’t the right number for RN escorts.

Hi Paul, Germany is only one country back from Russia. They also remember WW2. They will continue to ‘think tank’.

We are: a European power, a maritime power and a global power. So our requirements are large, complex and diverse.

Our army actually does warfighting and that includes the use of armour. Two regiments is not enough – three is the bare minimum.

Unlike the army the RN does seem to be gradually increasing its platform numbers. I am sure your are right that 19 escorts is too few – we don’t even have that at the moment.

Well Graham, you are certainly not alone in thinking 3 regiments is the minimum. I’d say that was the majority view, so the army and the government are under an obligation to say how the 148 tanks idea will work. Maybe there’s a secret plan to buy 70 K9s. I’m all ears.

A division should have three manouevre brigades, but 3(UK) Div has only two plus the rather odd 1st Deep Strike Recce Bde which combines Ajax and artillery. If 3xx had the conventional structure then each brigade should have min of one armd regt, hence three.

K9s are of course SPGs, so I don’t know how that fits into the tank numbers discussion.

How do you explain that the US has given over $76 billion in total aid to Ukraine since Jan 2022?

Its not boots on the ground though is it? Someone was suggesting a “no fly zone” over Ukr but thats a very difficult thing to do with all the MANPADS in theatre. The Russians tried a “Wild Weasel” approach using Sukhoi with ECM pods to identify UkR air defences but they kept being taken down by Stinger and Starstreak and Gephard.

Preventing the Ukraine from directly attacking legitimate targets inside Russia is just encouraging Putin to carry on bombing civvies and residential blocks etc

The Americans are happy to let the Ukr do the fighting, but unless there is a breakthrough ultimately NATO will have to go in, as Stoltenberg said last month. And that will have to be carefuly managed

Translation, as usual HMG wants the military to do more, with only so much money offered, and it’s not possible, so now there’s a huge bun fight in MoD at what gets dropped, cut, delayed, and how to spin it. Am I warm….?

I’d say you are spot on really.

Daniele, yes I added the OCUs assuming that they had a war time function.I think there was at least one OCU for each of the groups. But all in all the loss of fast jet squadrons is stark to say the least…it’s even more stark that when you think at that time the carrier force air wings roles were cover by the three sea harrier squadrons..800,801 and 899….

I really cannot see are fast jet forcing working if we have less than the 6 front line typhoon squardons and 4 f35 squadrons.

For me 24-27escorts is probably the minimum number we should have been looking at, 9 with AAW focus and 15-16 ASW focused. So we can generate 4 escorts for a carrier group (12 escorts needed), 3 escorts for amphibious group ( 9 escorts needed) and 1-2 independent deployments, in high risk areas you don’t want OPVs ( 3-6 escorts needed).

But on top of that we minimum number of escorts…we then need an effective ocean going patrol element of 2500 ton OPVs and sub surface monitoring vessels ( For the Falklands and Antarctic, North Atlantic and North Sea, home waters etc) that needs to be at least 12-16 mixed patrol type vessels ( from batch one rivers through to HMS protector and RFA proteus), the RN actually seems to be doing well on this.

Thought so. Agreed, in war, we use everything possible.

I agree with your outline. Sensible, non fantasy fleets, and easily affordable, if HMG were interested.

I fear 3 F35 Sqns, plus the OCU and OEU, is all that will be forthcoming.

Whether the extra 2 Typhoon Sqns, created after Tornado went using existing aircraft, so another smokescreen, survive with T1s loss I’m uncertain.

Yes the risk is that in the future we get a reduction in Typhoon squadrons before we see the new 6 generation fighter in the 2040s i honestly think that’s why we need a tranche 4 typhoon purchase to replace the tranche ones, anything else is a cut..hidden as a sunset.. as well as getting at least 78 f35B….

around the fleet escorts… we really should put in some form of ASW capability beyond the small ship flight into the T31 and T32, with potentially some form of enhanced local Area AAW capability for the type 26. Yes the type 26 does not have the exquisite AAW sensors of a type 45..but nothing else does…the present AAW sensor fit is adequate for a local area AAW capability., even if it’s just adding CAMM-ER which is clearly able cover a 60KM+ area.

Pretty much every other western navy does ensure that most of its escorts can provide a secondary area AAW or ASW escort function, it’s really only the RN that has gone down the Min max road…that works if you have loads of escorts over your needs, it does not work with minimal escorts numbers..in that case every hull needs to be able to do something of everything, even if it does one thing very well and the second thing less so. The reality is the min max has been driven by accounting not needs.

so if you think about it even with the present planned hulls we could ensure our escorts can have:

For AAW
1) exquisite AAW 6 T45
2) local area AAW 8 T26
this gives 14 hulls that can provide area defence.Then:
3) self defence AAW and goalkeeping function 10 type 31/32

For ASW ( and this is the real weakness of the surface fleet as we really need 14-15 hulls that can do ASW to some degree….people will go but ASW is the job of the SSN fleet..yes but the ssn fleet is also doing ASuW and strike)
1) exquisite ASW 8 T26
2) provide adequate ASW sensors to the T31/32 fleet to support the ASW screen for 10 hulls. ( you can provide tails for these vessels even if they have noisy hulls…yes they will not be exquisite sub hunters but and escorts job is to block the threat, not necessarily hunt it down).

3) the Type 45s may not need the ability to act as part of the ASW screen and they are unlikely now to be deployed much on their own..but they still need a manned active sonar….an active sonar can drive off a sub and prevent it attacking.

just doing that making sure all our escorts can do a secondary role would ameliorate numbers ( as long as we get the 5 T32s).

So, why, do the RN not do it? HMG and money I suspect?
T45 has a sonar apparently, it was left unmanned in the cuts according to posts here.
Agree on all other points. And you’re right, they hide cuts in sunset future kit proclamations all the time, then move the goalposts after a few years.

Yes unfortunately the limiting of the secondary function is very much about money and budget ( be that capital expenditure or manpower cuts). But it’s been enabled by a focus on only the very exquisite primary capability of the escort and a willingness to see secondary functions as completely expendable.

The Arleigh Burke is a classic example…now when I did mention this around the conversation on the type 8x and it’s need also have ASW capabilities..a lot of individuals went down the line but the AB is not a great ASW hull so your talking nonsense….no it’s not as good as a dedicates ASW frigate…but it’s profoundly better than a hull without a tail and no ASW capability at all….the argument no capability is worse by far than a less than exquisite capability seems to fall on deaf ears…which is odd as having a secondary role in no way reduces the primary capability…an AB is not a worse AAW platform because it also has a tail and a type 45 would not have been a worse AAW platform for having a tail…it would be an immeasurable better ASW platform than a type 45 without a tail….it’s the same with the T31….the RN are building a very potential strike platform, that has the space to take a tail without impact on its primary role ( which is after all a GP frigate…which historically is a ship that can do AAW as well as ASW), but we will see a whole new set of escorts that could be part of the ASW screen as becoming essential irrelevant in this role because of a lack of money….

I don’t blame the RN they are going to try to get the hull numbers they need and then try and manage the lack of secondary function and because of this mass by how they work operationally. Also the RN has focused very much on making sure all it’s escorts are able to participate in air defence, which is generally the most likely threat, there are far more moderately competent airforces and aircraft that represent a threat than there are submarine forces…but our two likely peer enemies do have large competent submarine forces…and to protect something like a carrier you do actually need a mass of ASW threats to shut down the ability of a submarine to attack, not just a small number of exquisite abilities…the RN are doing it with AAW ( where every escort supports the screen)..they can do it with ASW.

Obviously you haven’t listened to a word that either I or my more technical colleagues have said. AAW and ASW are completely different functions. They need different hulls, different propulsion and different cruise strategies. Just because the USN is stuck in an AB dead end and other navies cannot afford dedicated vessels doesn’t alter these facts.

Yes I have, and actually a lot of very knowledgeable commentators on these pages have very clearly said that it’s quit possible to have a hull that is not quited to do ASW work…what you have not heard is that I’ve not said put high end exquisite ASW and AAW together..but doing what every other navy does and ensuring all your escorts have a primary and then secondary function is a perfectly sensible approach, the French do it, the Italians do it,. The Horizon class AAW destroyer has exactly the same hull mounted sonar fit as the FREMM ASW frigate, they all have a UMS 4110CL sonar..the FREMMs then build on this with quite hulls and Tails, The FREDA class air defence frigates have literally the same ASW capability as the FREMM ASW frigates….You can actually build in a secondary ASW role to an primary air defence or ASuW combatant..in the same way as you can build a secondary air defence role into a ASW frigate, the secondary role may be inferior…but it’s still there……literally every major navy on earth has done this the only reason the RN does not is cost per hull and crew numbers that it….the only reason….finally and I will say it again it’s better to have some ASW capability in a hull than none…if you go through every French escort of every type it has some ASW capability. Every US escort it has some ASW capabilities…every nation gives its escorts a primary and then secondary function….just not the RN in the type 45 and type 31 and if you think that’s not because of money…I’ve got a lovely bridge to sell…( if the RN could find the money from the treasury of course they would give it reasonable ASW sensor fit).

No need for rational thoughts on this site then. Must be the fault of the money men, couldn’t be anything else! Nothing like a good horror story to keep the children happy 😃. Unfortunately reality is a little different. If you analyse what Destroyers and Frigates do, 80/90% is exercise and constabulary work. So to have everything on every ship is a bit of a fools errand. However, when you have need of the “high end” to have only jack of all trades to do it, means you’ve wasted your money because jack of all trades versus high end has lost the fight before entering the game.
So the argument that “everyone else does it” is like saying everyone did lock-down so it must be right. You do know what happens to sheep in times of war right?

Again you miss the point I never said jack of all trades…I clearly said escorts should have a primary function and for this it should be exquisite….but that in no way removes the utility of a secondary function….it’s a waste of money to waste the opportunity to have that secondary function….as every one of our hight ens ASW assets has a pretty reasonable secondary local area air defence function…..the navy almost built singular ASW escorts with no air defence capabilities…has a bloody conflict that involved operating under the air umbrella of the enemy and realised it was a foolish idea to not haves a secondary local air defence capability in its ASW escort..the thing is we have low escort numbers and the hulls will not be assigned to just do air defence or just do ASW, thats not how it works…if we had all the money in the world and had 12 exquisite air defence platforms and 12-14 exquisite ASW platforms then maybe we could just have them doing one thing….we don’t and the navy gets all its escorts doing all sorts of tasking…finally giving a type 31 frigate an ASW sensor suit would in no way impact or lessen any other of its capabilities…a type 45 would no longer be as good an AAW destroyer with a decent sonar fit….yours is a zero sum assumption where to improve one element of capability is to reduce another….that does not always need to be the case..especially in modern large hulled escorts.

as a manager of risk for populations of over 1million people in regards to emergency care and civil contingencies, I find that response a bit limited.

The management of catastrophic risk ( and I have deal in deaths and loss of life in the many thousands over decades) Numbers actually do matter, mathematics has a brutal truth that no risk manage strategy can ameliorate ( infact much amelioration of risk is a fiction we tell ourselves to alleviate personal, professional, organisational and legal guilt or liability,) I have seen so much death that could have been prevented if the numbers had been there…when all around we recuse ourselves from guilt by telling a story of increased effectiveness as a way to manage decreased numbers and mass…but only when you have a dead child is in front of you that could have lived or you have to sit in a room and tell another load of relatives why their lives are shattered, when you knew there was actually no need you end up with a profound understanding that the numbers of resources you deploy against risk you have is profoundly important…and a lot of the “we have improved our systems” is just so much shite…when the truth alway was we needed more Drs or paramedics ( we are great at that in this county…we have the least numbers of healthcare professionals per 1000 population of any peer nation and still insist if we just did another reform it would all be better….) .

Im someone who has spent 25 years facing managing risk, I’m the person who has managed risk of death and destruction at a personal professional level by looking people in the eyes as they scream in pain and suffer and deciding who gets the resources that saves their lives and who has to wait and take a risk. Ive managed incident rooms as everything went to hell, I’ve also been the person who oversees the emergency care of almost a million souls and has the burden of knowing we don’t have the numbers of resources to save the people that need saving and having to play the game of shifting resources and trying new approaches the. I have to show where the resources go and tell the story of how we are managing the risk…..( knowing all the time I’m talking about dead babies,children, parents etc but talking about mitigations when what was actually needed to save those people was more Drs, more paramedics and enough consultants on shirt in the dark hours of the night)

so for me risk is a many faceted beast and it is the enemy ( I hate it with a passion born out of all the unnecessary deaths I’ve seen and investigated and massive doses of PTSD from not being able to do everything with what I had and the consequences of the choices I made….I know people have died because i only had limited resources and had to pick):

So for risk ( from emergency care, to flight safety to civil contingency, public health and beyond) first we essentially have the things that drive the quality of the capabilities:

1) human factors….no mater how perfect your systems or how much resource you have unless your perfect your human factors such as numbers, training, rest, not be overwhelmed with decisions…people will die…we all make mistakes I’d we are pushed….
2) system processes…these should removed as many human factors as possible as well as work as effectively as they can..being clear and easy to use…but covering all bases.
3) learning system…the world is dynamic and what worked yesterday will kill people today.
4) The systems ability to improve and change..yes it can learn that something no longer works or the risk has evolved but how do you change and adapt…if your system cannot take the learning, test it and then change you cannot manage risk.

Then you get down to some more fundamental things and it does not matter how exquisite your capabilities, wonderfully your systems or well trained your people if these are wrong you kill people.

capacity vs demand within a defined time and space ( right number of resources, at the right time in the right place) basically it does not matter how wonderful your system is or how high quality your capabilities are… if you overload the capacity with demand in that specific time and place….people die and you fail…if you have an ambulance call stack of 100 calls in a county ( 10 cat 1s ( dead or dying now) 40 cat 2s ( in the process of dying) 30 cat 3s ( suffering and may die at some point) 30 cat 4s) and only 10 ambulance in your county with an average on scene and Conveyance to ED time of 40 mins….no matter if you a perfect system with perfect paramedics…your having a large number of unnecessary deaths….purely because your capacity in that time and space were inadequate against the demand…if you have two AAW destroyers that each cover a diameter of 100 miles..if you have 3 vital assets spread out over 300 miles or more…..your buggered….it does not matter how exquisite or top end the 2 destroyers are…If losing one of those targets losses you the campaign…..you have lost….you would have been better to have had a third less good AAW capability to cover the third target…something is always better than nothing..alway ( take it from the man with the images of dead people, in his mind that never go way) …in the case of the ambulances and managing the to many calls…the only thing to do is increase your capacity…( we effectively water down the capability it increase capacity) we split some crews into cars…we also use emergency care assistants so spread out the crews so those 10 paramedic ambulances become 10 mixed paramedic and care assistant crews with 10 single paramedics in cars, we even then put care assistants in cars as well..to give more capacity…then we even get volunteers train them in first aid and life support, put a defibrillator in their own cars and send them out as well…as far from a Two paramedic response as you can get..in-fact an utterly shit capability..but when your heart has gone into vfib and you have no pulse. and you only have a few minutes to return circulation before your rotting in the ground for eternity ..anything is better than nothing…literally anything..when that air attack is barring down on a critical asset and your T45s are 200 miles away.. any ship with 32 CAMMs and a basic sensor set is better than nothing….when a T31 is the only escort you have and you think an electric boat is hiding behind a seabed feature..it having reasonable sensor set and going active..is better than leaving the electric boat to kill what it wants when it wants.

As for exquisite capabilities I agree with you an airforce with a fifth generation capability will eat an airforce based on a forth generation airforce alive…but we cannot have the F35s on our carrier and also working from land bases if we don’t have 4 squadrons…we cannot expect 6 squadrons of typhoon pilots to be everywhere, every time they can only be one place each and for a short time….they eat sleep rest and play…..mass and numbers profoundly matter…a classic example is the T45 it’s profoundly better than a T42 or T82 infact around 4 times better….so In theory our 6 T45s are worth 24 T42/T82..but that’s just not true…because where they are in time and space against the need also matters…the .6 Type T45s have a profound weakness against the 13 T42/T82s they cannot be in the same number of places at the same time…..any enemy will exploit that weakness.. they will Simply attack where and when the T45 is not present.

Fanally you have the spectra of exhaustion…this is a key risk of reduced mass/numbers .just look at the Ukraine Russia conflict…do you think any conflict between the west and China will be over in weeks or a few months…it will go on for years until one side is completely denuded of the resources needed to fight…so mass is important here as well.

finally when you remove all the risk elements you go on to deterrent…and this is the prime function of the military… the classic example of deterrent is PAX Britannia..this was built on the deterrent of the Royal Navy having so much mass as to overwhelm the navel capabilities of any enemy any time any where for however long was needed… for that to work it had to be have three key components

1)credible ( people know you have the capability)
2) visibility ( if your not showing your forces and people don’t think you have the numbers to be present, your not a deterrent) 3) finally will ( people need to know you will fight, low mass can be seen as a lack of will to fight).

So .numbers are critical for deterrent..if you don’t have the numbers to patrol and be visible your not a deterrent..this happened with china..the RN stayed away from Chinese waters and china went to war with the greatest imperial power the world has ever known…but china had no idea..if it had understood that capabilities of the RN is would not have gone to war on the flip side…..the US was desperate to go to war with the Uk for most of the 19c after the war of 1812 but the number of warships the RN deployed around the US meant they never invaded Canada again or tried it on…they were shown every day the RN had the numbers..so deterrent is not just about capability..it’s about having the mass to be there in that time and space.

anyway sorry it’s rambling old post but.I’m sure you will have fun picking it apart.

Respect your service. Longest post I’ve ever seen! But I think you’ve ended up agreeing with my point! Low end platforms for low end work (constabulary) and high end platforms for high end work (carrier defence).
My background as an underwriter (life&property) then as a financial risk consultant, taught me a few things. Firstly dealing with actuaries/Quants, my job was to bring “common sense” to bear, don’t know if your old enough to remember the term GiGo (garbage in garbage out) sometimes when you measure the things you can your outputs are nonsense. Secondly, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it Rhymes. And thirdly, people are more important than technology.
So the Falklands taught the RN an important lesson and they have followed the correct course in specialist/generalist platforms. Emphasis on training (see numerous recent USN reports on training deficiencies) and practical common sense approach (see USN leadership training “qualification” approach).
So everyone would like to see more platforms, including the US even! But I know it’s not fashionable or maybe even treasonous to say good things about the MOD/RN, but by and large we have done a better job than our peers, without exception.

Frankly 2 powerful Rolls-Royce turbofan engines would have been the ideal choice

Probably gone for four smaller turbofans, redundancy and ground clearance mate…

The TP400 was a bizarre choice, a pure job creation scheme that could have sunk the whole programme….

Re-invening the wheel for no reason, it sums up European defence projects really….

Necessity is the Mother of invention. I’m sure that if it is needed and the right people are drawing attention to the issue a solution will be found.

That’s how things uusally turn out.

I was very impressed to see the Atlas land on the beach, but it may have had a light payload.

NO idea about wehat was on board either the herc or Stals. AUW demands on the strneth of the sand of course! I’m not sure how their repective U/C distribute the weight.

Have to admit that thing isn’t for me. Wouldn’t go anywhere near it if you paid me to, never mind paying them for the pleasure, and I played that game for 32 years. An older head and all that….
Got to say, can’t see the fascination with going down to that depth to visit the site. You get a far better perspective watching the documentary on TV.

Sadly the USCG and friends have seen a debris field made up of recognisable parts of the Titan vessel. It’s 400 bar down there so catastrophic failure of the pressure vessel would have been very quick. Not a long wait to run out of breathable air which seems a terrible slow way to die. God rest their adventurous souls…

Yes, caught part of the Ch 5 programme on the subject, very sad indeed. 5 more are now ‘forever on patrol’ as we say.