Tobias Ellwood, Chair of the Defence Committee, issued a stark warning regarding the state of the UK’s armed forces and defence readiness during remarks in Parliament on 14 June 2023.
“I pay tribute to the Minister for his opening remarks and join him in paying tribute to the valiant work that our armed forces do,” began Mr. Ellwood.
He praised the armed forces for ensuring the security of the nation in an increasingly complex world but suggested that the Minister could have summarised the situation by saying, “We are busy, and we are getting busier.”
Mr. Ellwood raised concerns about the global trend of diminishing international cooperation and the rise in isolationist policies, which he sees as being detrimental to Britain’s economy and security. “Globalisation is slowly dying,” said Mr. Ellwood. He noted that the retreat of nations into more siloed and protectionist stances, particularly post-COVID, exposes the UK both economically and security-wise.
“When global security deteriorates, our economy suffers,” he pointed out, referring to the impact of the situation in Ukraine on oil, gas and food prices. Mr. Ellwood critiqued the Treasury’s approach to defence spending, saying it was “baffling to hear the Treasury continue to say, ‘Yes, we will spend 2.5% on defence when economic conditions improve,’ not realising the obvious connection that our economy and international security are directly related.”
The government’s “Integrated Review Refresh” of the defence and security policy was also brought to light by Mr. Ellwood. “I have never seen such strong language in a Government paper before,” he said, citing paragraph 8 which stated: “There is a growing prospect that the international security environment will further deteriorate in the coming years, with state threats increasing and diversifying in Europe and beyond. The risk of escalation is greater than at any time in decades.”
Mr. Ellwood highlighted the significant reduction in the UK’s military capabilities since the Gulf War in 1990, emphasising the need for investment and upgrades to the armed forces. “It is a grim state of affairs when our armed forces are not shaped to meet the threats, but trimmed to meet the budget,” he said.
A detailed comparison was given, showing that at the time of the Gulf War, the Royal Navy had 51 frigates and destroyers, whereas now it has only 18; the RAF had 36 fast jet squadrons, now just seven; and the British Army’s capabilities have significantly diminished.
He specifically called out the Treasury, saying, “It is the Treasury that needs to appreciate this,” acknowledging that the Defence Ministers understand the gravity of the situation.
Notably, Mr. Ellwood mentioned the cuts to the Type 32 frigate programme, the reduction in the E-7 ISTAR planes, and the decrease in the armed forces’ manpower from 82,000 to 72,000. He called the current state of the armed forces “a real kick in the teeth.”
“Sadly, we are neither ready for war, nor any longer able to project a viable conventional deterrent to maintain the peace,” Mr. Ellwood concluded, emphasising that while the Navy and RAF have seen some investment and upgrades, the British Army has been left behind.
Italy, Spain, Germany, South Korea, Israel, Japan, Scandinavia etc, do not have nuclear submarines. The UK should scrap Trident and cancel Tempest. This would free a huge amount of funds. These funds can be used to procure additional F35As, A400s, GBAD units. Also another 2 helicopter carriers. As for Nuclear deterrence, the UK can host US weapons and deploy them on it’s aircraft. UK is not a global player, and does not need Trident. Post Brexit Britain is a very different place, the UK needs to get used to a smaller economy, and it’s citizens need to adjust to lower… Read more »
The only issue with that: is that the ONLY language that dictators understand is the threat of a D5 delivered bucket of sunshine.
If anything we need a stronger nuclear capability, when it comes to great power competition conventional weapons are large useless. America’s might navy didn’t stop Russia invading Ukraine and would not protect the baltics.
I think the number of warheads is being quietly increased.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
Hi Jim
Our deterrent did not stop the Falklands invasion
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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 ,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
100% correct .
“If anything we need a stronger nuclear capability, when it comes to great power competition conventional weapons are large useless.” The is not correct and the exact opposite is true. Every nuclear armed power knows that nuclear weapons use is a last resort and use against another nuclear power is assured suicide. This fact leaves a massive amount of space for armed conventional conflict and whichever country has the most capable conventional military has a huge advantage. Russia and China know this and so they try to take advantage by engaging in conventional actions that stay below the threshold of… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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,… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
🤞🤞🙏
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. 🤔😳😱
A Navy from an ideologically opposed nation does not stop land invasions – never have done.
Navies do their work at sea!
Correct pal .
✌️
SB right on. Whilst others have nuclear capability we cannot give up our second strike capability. Putin understood we can take out Moscow. Secondly USA may not always be depended on. Was on the verge of thinking do we need to renew the uk deterrent and then came along Ukraine invasion.
We do not restrict our nuclear deterrent to Second Strike.
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.
Supportive Bloke, what dictator has changed their actions because of the threat of a D5 being launched by the UK? The answer is none! And that’s before the number of D5 per boat was halved and their target coordinates removed from the missiles.
Halving D5’s and removing targeting makes zero difference to the likes of NK or Iran.
They know we can respond in kind.
These are crazy bully countries run by crazy, crazy people who like to stir the pot.
my guy would be that it has deterrence value just as QEC’s have.
T26/T31 will also have a different kind of deterrence. 24 heavy conventional missiles coming through the window will make most dictators think.
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… Read more »
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.
Nukes deter other nuke powers, but a strong conventional military deters other threats. A tiny, weak, hollowed out military diminishes our voice & empowers our enemies.
Agreed – we are becoming over reliant on the nuclear deterrent.
That said our conventional deterrent is based around RN CSG with the ability of T31 and T26 to deliver precision strike and RAF in the areas it can reach to.
Is that the opinion of your bosses in the kremlin comrade. 😀
Even with scrapping trident the money would end up going else where. With shrinking defence forces trident is what keeps the U.K. at the top table. Tempest is a multi national project and is keeping money in the U.K. economy. Buying an American jet that the U.K. can’t even modify or service fully etc is a terrible idea and only fills the US pockets with cash. We will see tempest being better than F35 and cheaper to use. So long as tempest is kept away from meddling ministers/service leaders changing requirements it should be fine. The only way the U.K.… Read more »
That is exactly what would happen if we abandoned the nuclear deterrent – the Treasury, facing demands for additional public services for the 500,000 migrants that we are taking in each year would take the money saved and spend it A far better solution would be the root and branch reform of MoD procurement recomended by the recent independent Ajax report, led by barrister Clive Sheldon QC. Even then, due to his severely contrained terms of reference, Sheldon was prevented from naming names or identifying the technical design flaws and project mismanagement which led to this latest MoD procurement disaster.… Read more »
Full accountability in the MoD?
I thought today was Fathers Day, not April Fools Day…
It’s the modifications, fiddling, unsuitable vehicle starting point after those modifications, badly made hulls, inexperienced company building it, bad budget control, lack of accountability that has screwed up Ajax. The timescale is also far to long. Technology changes quickly. It’s went from a scimitar replacement to being heavier than a Soviet main battle tank. Probably noisier than a MBT as well. Don’t get me wrong I really hope it works. and gets the army what they want. Ideally the U.K. should get back to the research/development depts it used to have that developed great stuff, team up small development depts… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Cor, it all comes flooding back. The turrets on the 432s, I’d forgotten them!
You mean the 500,000 working migrants that are keeping the brexit economy afloat. 😀
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… Read more »
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.
Oh please, proven fact that migrants add more to the economy, on average, than they take away and pay more taxes then the average Brit due to the NHS levy.
The issue is all the public services are falling apart and so yes money would go that way. It’s hard to argue against it currently.
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.
I agree with alll you say but I would add that there are many players outside the MoD also with some responsibility for procurement cock-ups: Industry, the Treasury, interfering politicians.
Top table of what? Realistically the only people on the top table are the US and China (Russia lost its place) and maybe the EU (economic strength rather than miltiary). Everyone else is just there trying to look big next to their chosen side. It’s been a very long time since our military could make polictical changes in another country, probably Suez was the last time and that went badly. If a war started that was in our interests, but not our allies, no one would join us, but the same isn’t true for the US. Nukes or no nukes… Read more »
Don’t gete wrong, we have a voice because of our military strength, but I don’t think top table anymore.
The top table is consider to include most of the following: permanent member of the UN Security Council, Member of G7, nuclear power, world wide influence, one of the main world financial centres in the country, to name a few.
Exactly.
Another silly comment. The Top Table is the Permanent Members of The UN Security Council. There is no other top table and we are a member of that club. Contrary to the constant nonsense from declinist commentators. The EU has no permanent say at the top table neither does Japan or Germany. The modern world order was founded by the UK and USA. Ditto the world institutions the EU will always be an attempt to match.
Do you mean founded by the British Empire and the USA
We are on the top table – P5 at the UN, G7, nuclear-armed, strong diplomacy, head of the Commonwealth, most reliable US military ally, Level 2 bluewater navy, 8th largest manufacturing country, European transport hub, major financial centre, strong entrepreneurship, high ranking for democracy…..
Being on the top table is not simply about having enormous armed forces – India is not up there.
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
I would like to hope that if we dont have the funds, the Japanese will put up the funds for a Navalised variant.
I agree its frustrating we have been denied the timely integration of our weaponry for the F35B by the USA which is extremely unhelpful if unsurprising. I think its actually in breach of treaties giving mutual exchange of defence tech.
Why would the Japanese want a naval variant?
Nuclear is pretty good VFM really, but as always UK has not made the most of its investment by building SMRs to give us energy security that could lead to more competitiveness for our manufacturing industries if done right and meet net zero.
like most things we get rid of this it won’t be replaced and the money will be cut anyway.
priorities are wrong and there is no long term plan…
The RR SMR is a completely different kettle of fish and is in the process of being certified. When it is ready a launch customer will be the needed and at that point for production can be funded see HMG for details. I assure you that you can’t directly leverage the sub PWR tech into an SMR as there are way too many complexities, in specs, engineering and U.K /US treaty restrictions. Not to mention the fact that trying to do so would involve breaching the OSA, so jail and some really serious consequences internationally. Hence RR has to have… Read more »
The UK has no energy security. It’s land mass is tiny for It’s population. It will always be dependent on imports. Unless of course it sees sense and rapidly invests in nuclear power, not nuclear weapons.
Imagine how much better the Russian economy would be without wasting so much money and resources on a nuclear deterrent. How many more T-55 tanks could Russia field for the price of one or two Typhoon class subs. They’d have to implement a strict no smoking policy when on board those tanks though.
If Russia did not have nuclear weapons they would currently be under NATO occupation with china land grabbing half of Siberia, nukes are all that keeps them in the game.
100% correct …
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.
Nobody has any interest in invading Russia.
It would be a nightmare.
China will just use it cheque book to get whatever it wants now from a weakened Russia.
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.
NATO is a defensive alliance – it would have no business invading Russia. Where do you get that idea from?
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.
Who put that idea in your head Mr midget coward Putin ? End of the day UK still the 2nd biggest defence spender in NATO and largest spender in Europe and that’s fact . Another fact it’s a national disease in the UK talk up foreign militaries and talk our own down like we’ve done with Russia who imo are a 3rd division military power . . UK armed forces 2 modern super aircraft carriers . Trident. High end Hunter killer subs . 5th gen fighters . New ships being built and much much more .Let’s be honest Russia was… Read more »
Well said!
There is no doubt, the UK is a major military strength, for it’s size, say compared to Spain, Italy or Germany. But the MOD seems to waste billions on the wrong equipment, when the US has solutions. The UK would be better equipped if it spent smarter like South Korea, Israel and Japan.
Better equipped for what? we face no threats at home, our forces at set for expeditionary war fare in pursuit of our own foreign policy and security goals not US ones although the two normally align.
Why on earth would you think Israel or South Korea is an analogy for the UK? who do you think could possibly threaten the UK mainland? Are you still peddling the Russian Airforce nonsense from yesterday?
Absolutely not this is not a policy but a dereliction of the primary responsibility of any government. Would you cancel your house insurance to allow monies to be spent on a new TV?
I doubt ‘money saved’ would be used for defence. Instead it would be frittered away anywhere but.
Tempest a better medium-term bet than more F-35s, not least because leadership is with the UK, and money spent would stay largely in the UK.
Incorrect on several levels. The UK is a global player – a resilient democracy, a responsible nuclear power with a seat on the UN security council, a blue water navy, a Rolls Royce diplomatic service and one of the world’s largest world economies. Post Brexit UK will indeed be a different place. It won’t happen overnight but our unwritten constitution enables is to change ourselves – priceless. You can see the early signs now in cross party agreement on giving more powers to regional mayors and an emerging consensus on the need for an elected 2nd chamber. I don’t agree… Read more »
Are you in fact a Russian troll? I have been reading your posts and they seem to be right out of the Kremlin text book. Good Day.
Good day to you also. I am not a Russian troll, but just play Devil’s Advocate.
Brexit means defence cuts.
That’s not what boris said. Brexit means great trade deals, build back batter
Good video from Jonathan pie on the latest boris saga.
https://youtu.be/H5znEigYYCw
UK not a global player…are u smoking flower or is it edibles today?
I’ve read some rubbish on here before but this sir might just take the title. “It’s citizens need to adjust to lower standards of living”???? Is this out of Jeremy Corbyns manifesto? The impact of COVID and Putin’s reckless war is causing most economic issues but should hopefully subside with time. The problem is all the left leaning financial “experts” keep predicting the UK to slide into recession it’s the EU which is currently struggling more than us, rightly justifying the British citizen who voted out or are you one that’s still bitter with that? Give up Trident??? What the… Read more »
The truth hurts. The UK, a proud peaceful nation, a major power in Europe, leaves the EU, for what? There are simple NO gains to be had. Party political interests have destroyed the UKs economy. The futre will simple be higher interest rates, higher food costs, a smaller manufacturing sector, a decimated health service, inflated housing costs, increased crime in it’s cities, a smaller military, less police presence, higher fuel costs, worthless pensions, knife crime. What is the future of the UK?
Its amazing really, I honestly had no idea Brexit controlled the world economy.
Virtually every country has higher interest rates, higher food costs and higher fuel costs.
Even countries outside of Europe, jeez I need to go back and start reading on world economics.
Oh no, you are just full of crap.
The utter nonsense is shocking. Before you tell me I know nothing about economics or the like and that I am just reading some propaganda, I’ll divulge that I have a degree in PPE from Oxford and work at a major US bank, frequently stateside, frequently in the UK, and occasionally abroad. The notion that the British economy is bound to collapse never populated the minds of economists or financiers. The primary issue stems from our approach to investment being misinterpreted by the papers and by the public – we do not create economic rankings through our analysis. Simply put,… Read more »
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.
One of Barnier’s key economic advisers has said that though there were some initial negative effects of Brexit, by now it is making very little difference, either to EU or UK.
Our problems stem mainly from the ineptitude of our politicians, of all parties.
That’s fake Pro EU propaganda….Fact all the EU suffering bad and many parts much worse than the UK interest rates are up everywhere in the world the UK interest rates have been falsely low now for 2 decades and needed bringing to a realistic level historically average UK home loan interest rate have been 8.9 % over the last hundred years,.My family own a business in Turkey numbers are down this year another fact for you UK tourist numbers are slightly up EU tourist numbers are down talking to regular guest from the EU countries they can’t afford to visit… Read more »
You do post some absolute twaddle don’t you? If you are a Russian troll farm, do continue, as your time would be better spent getting shot in Ukraine. No one is falling or being pursuaded by the cobblers you post.
In fact, actual British posters, not fake accounts like yourself, are demolishing it.
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.
Stop peddling this antibrexit nonsense. Effectively the EU and the UK is run by the WEF. The money we save from not being in it is probably being spent in export costs. This will decline over time as companies seek trade with less paperwork and cost. Our underspending on defence has in part been caused by covid, but mainly crass management by Labcon of the economy over the last 20 years compounded by a poor MOD. Your comment let’s our politicians off the hook and blames the people. That’s totally wrong and untrue.
Question mark count exceeded. alert
Couple of issues: 1) the UK is a global power it is recognised as one of the worlds 10 great powers and it is predicted to stay in the position. It’s still the 6th largest economy in the world and is expected to stay in the top 10 for a few generations yet…with only the UK and German of the European powers predicted to be there. So for instance we have over twice the GDP of Russia ( and Russia has a lot more nuclear warheads than we do). 2)As for individual wealth and people in the UK being poor…the… Read more »
Yeah no chance of that
Nope. Serious lack of strategic defence knowledge on that post 💩
The nuclear deterrent is a necessity, politically even more so….which leads to the obvious logic that the expense of the the subs/warheads R&D should come directly out of the Treasury budget, rather than the MoD.
The UK is, and has always been, a global player. Why do you say otherwise?
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-ranked-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world-in-audit-of-major-powers/
There is madness in your method my friend, not the other way round. As a leading belligerent towards Russia and therefore Iran (soon to be a nuclear power) and the CCP with it’s sphere of influence. We are heading full speed towards a very nasty Cold War. Thankfully we have experience of winning Cold Wars. The only weapons that prevented WWIII against the USSR and Warsaw Pact were nuclear. The deterrent of mutually assured destruction. Not only do we need more nuclear weapons but new and unstoppable ways of delivering them across the globe. All of the above is vital,… Read more »
Having nuclear weapons and the ability to use them anywhere in the world gives Britain the ability to ultimately defend itself from anyone, and scare the living sh/t out of lunatics like Putin and Xi should they chance their arm. Besides, we can’t always and shouldn’t depend on the US to save our bacon, they’ve got lots of their own issues. A cultural-socialist revolution being the main one but also massive crime and societal and law and order breakdown in many of their cities.
“As for Nuclear deterrence, the UK can host US weapons and deploy them on it’s aircraft.” With the direction of political developments in the US, particularly in the Republican party, this does not seem to be the time to be abandoning our own modest deterrent.
Badger you have to be joking ? Biden shafted us in Afghanistan, along with others. Biden has issued a torrent of anti British comment since. I would remind all the contributors to this site that under article 5 NATO members are only obliged to give assistant not get directly involved in a war. Even if Ukraine had been a NATO member the others would have to do more than they are now. If Russia attacks us you can whistle that 7th cavalry is coming to our rescue, because under Biden it is NOT.
The words in quotes come from another contributor with which I didn’t agree. I am advocating the retention of our deterrent not its abandonment. And no I’m not joking.
The costs of defence items is one major factor. If government could work out what the cost benefit of producing/developing items in the U.K. is worth to the economy by money kept in the country that would be useful. The business dept should be helping to fund home grown tech as other countries like Italy do. Using cheaper foreign labour to make some items may be an option depending on the answer to the first question. It all comes down to how many ships and what types does the navy need to keep the U.K. running as a starting point.… Read more »
When we decide to design and make something in the UK that is already available off the shelf at less cost, then the Trade Department should pay the difference. Far too often we’re buying poor value for money kit (e.g.Wildcat), technology risky projects (Nimrod AEW, Nimrod MR4) or insufficient numbers of platforms
That’s because politicians see the primary purpose of the defence budget as being job creation and the enrichment of UK defence contractors shareholders.
Agree p, bespoke platforms are a waste of money to build domestic. Better to focus production on platforms we can procure in numbers where there is a large potential export market. Combat jets, warships and submarines being the first priority.
Armoured vehicles should be an easy one that is constantly messed up. No point in paying for a “off the shelf” design to be UK “manufactured” total waste of money all round.
There are times when buying overseas makes sense. But you need to take an overall view & not just the sticker price. You send money overseas & it’s gone. You spend it local & it’s not gone. It recirculates. People & companies pay tax. They also spend money locally & round & round it goes. HMG can spend 10-20% more for local & still come out in front. There is a reason why companies allow licence builds & why many set up themselves in country. From a company point of view, the company still makes a profit (likely similar either… Read more »
Uk will never have enough numbers to go alone on projects and do it a reasonable price. Identify where there is a joint need with other players eg airborne early warning for 35b carrier navies no bRainer, or explore with eg Poland a joint tank when they are ready to replace their leopard.
I find it encouraging that Type 31 was held to a £250m unit cost. We need to do more of that across Defence. Boxers should not cost over £5m a copy.
Well said Mr Elwood, but is anyone listening?
He’s always banging on about this kind of stuff. His party doesn’t take much notice.
Yeah backbencher throwing stones that votes through every budget that cuts defence spending.
Agreed. Would he be an appropriate MoD Defence Minister, if Big Ben is selected for NATO Secretary General slot? Don’t believe HMG Treasury would successfully intimidate him.
Tensions within the world are only going to increase as the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) is implemented and ramped up. Other countries may consider it a form of protectionism or something a lot worse.
Time for Mr Elwood to actually do something, time for a mutiny
gather as many colleagues as possible together and get the government to increase defence spending (with required oversight) or resign en masses forcing an election.
time to do something…
Correct. We need a cross party effort to challenge the miserly increase in defence spending. Talks should begin right now to increase to 2.5% for 2024 or even sooner. That tops up the increase needed to cover our crazy inflation levels.
Cuts to the T32 program? I thought this was going ahead. Did I miss something?
I don’t think you did.
Cut T32 and NSBS is in tatters with boom / bust
Thx. Glad to know my brain still has some function :-). Agree with what you say about NSBS. It appears that the integrated review of defence and foreign policy report has been delayed…we can’t afford what is being proposed. But it does seem that the strategy decision has been taken in principle to downsize the army and increase the navy. There is a lot of +ve RN procurement and construction activity happening – quite rapid change. Also my reading of the Waves being put into extended readiness is that we do intend to deploy a bigger fleet.
Crewing can be fixed in time of war.
People who sail desks in RN can be told to resume their trades.
One of the risks of using civil servants to sail desks is that you have less of that emergency flex.
I am going to stop speculating about cuts at present as there is no point whatsoever as international politics are involved. We need to let that process run its course and see what happens. The devil is in the detail 🤔 If you read the finer point of the explanation for the delay to the Command Paper. The minister stated it is until after the NATO Summit in Vilnius on 12th July, and in fairness to HMG that is completely understandable. That summit is a ticking time bomb politically and for those of us on this site that aren’t Russian… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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?
IR Refresh 2023 was not delayed; it was published on 13th March. DCP is delayed till after the NATO Vilnius conference. The decision to further cut the army to 73k was taken over 2 years ago.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
Elmwood repeating that information from the Navy lookout social media site the same navy lookout social media site that quoted the T31 & T26 had been scrapped and POW carrier had been sold off.. Take it will a pinch of salt and wait and see what happens ..
I hope that the T32 is scrapped. Our priority in the escort fleet is ASW capability. We’re shortly going to have 60% of our escorts with no ASW detection sensors and propulsion systems not optimised for ASW. T32 is most probably another non-quietened diesel propulsion platform so doesn’t help address this at all.
I think T32 is what came into being when Boris Johnson agreed that the RN escort fleet should be bigger. Sort of new class of ship ‘think of a number bigger than 31’. Radakin’s objective was to get a commitment from him to increase numbers without any firm spec or role on what the extra ships would do. Good job. Since then we have seen lots of debate on what T32 should do, NSM and Mk41 will be fitted to T31, the retirement of Echo and Enterprise, the aggressive acquisition of undersea drone motherships, the Waves being kept in extended… Read more »
I’ll regard that the Gov / Treasury are taking the issue sufficiently seriously when they start open-sourcing the defence forces budget they know we need to defend the UK, rather than quoting the Resultant of what that represents as GDP% as an end in itself: a convention handy enough in peacetime, but ineffective under increasing geopolitical tension. That would require their not saying the percentage will rise when we can afford it, along with not discharging equipment & skills for some almost mythical future capability they’re hardly required to fund. One could with potentially equal logic state that this figure… Read more »
Nothing we have not known of for years.
The TREASURY, is the greatest enemy of the armed forces, be they under a Tory or a Labour administration, they’re all the same.
We have many fantastic assets and advanced infrastructure, but it only goes so far.
Hi Daniele – dont forget the politicians Biden is a weak and ineffectual president. Without consulting allies he withdrew US forces from Afghanistan, causing the botched evacuation of Kabul. He failed to rapidly reinforce NATO in eastern europe as a deterrent when it became obvious that Russia was going to invade Ukraine from Belarus. He has repeatedly refused to provide Ukraine with the armour, long range artillery, warplanes etc to prosecute the war on the spurious grounds that it would be “escalatory” And even today, whilst he allows Russia to bomb Ukraine hospitals. residential blocks, kintergartens and air raid shelters… Read more »
The Trump adminmistration actually negotiated the drawdown…….
Trump did. But then Biden jumped through the hoop and withdrew without discussing the matter with his allies, handing Afghan to the Tailibs after hundreds of British soldiers gave their lives – and limbs – fighting them.
And his weakness over Afghan was noted by Putin, who promptly invaded Ukraine. Putin has psyched Biden out, that is why he has announced with huge fanfare that he has given Lukashenko tactical nuclear weapons. Biden is not a good wartime leader, his threat of “sanctions” did not deter Putin and have not prevented Russia from fighting.
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… Read more »
Sadly the politics of Uncle sam at present is not helpfull as are the crap of the EU countries with one maybet two ( I dont trust Germany) and this leaves the worst of all scenarios a void. If it falls to us to fill part of the vacuam then so be it. If done in the right way we can gain huge influence in the world politically and finacially- even the Aukus deal is both helpfull and finacially benificial albeit small. It is time time politicians realised that have both an effective aramamants industry and all the goes with… Read more »
All good points, except that NATO will not go in to Ukraine.
We cannot rely on the US each and every time – their Presidents are so variable. European NATO members must be able to defend our continent – we are wealthy enough to do so.
The people at the Treasury need to Get there heads out of the sand 🙏
Hi M8 Watch the Vilnius NATO Summit on the 12th July and wait for what transpires. The Command Paper is delayed till after that.😉
Hmmmm….🤔 didn’t know that. Thanks.
Sky News broke the story, some comment about issues between funding for current needs and the future procurement projects.
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.
Interesting 🤔
It is primarily the Treasury but political job creation schemes and poor procurement have wasted tens of billions on kit that is of little use or delivered nothing (Ajax, Nimrod AEW, Wildcat, MR4, River class OPV, streaming out the build programme for the carriers etc).
Ajax is delayed but the fixes have been done and the programme is not overspent.
Trident very good value for money the big stick nobody wants to mess with Russian troll frost should understand without the threat of Russian Nukes Ukraine and Polish troops would have had a victory Parade in Red square sometime last year PUTIN and Cronies watching the Polish & Ukraine troops march round Moscow from prison cells waiting to be hanged.
Agree, re D5 providing credible deterrence.
I don’t think anyone wants to invade Russia. That would be insane. It is a huge country and is a total mess. The only country who could sod that is China and they are to sensible: they’d rather take it into economic servitude..
There is no need for us to do much beyond where we are now. BUT The RN and RAF need their procurement speeded up and integrated into the respective forces urgently. That includes all that “is fitted or designed for” being fitted now.
We all know the army is in a mess but it needn’t be. The JEF and special forces seem to me to be the obvious role for the UK. Ajax and Boxer? Now that we are in version four of the “restructuring” of the army what actually are they for.
These contractors treat the tax payer like bottomless pits Ajax was a joke shoulda just brought the CV90 we spend something like 50 billion a year on defence and have very little to show for it Israel has more forces personnel than we do and spend alot less
Well let’s hope it doesn’t take a bloody great real war to get our jollies on!! Surely the powers that be and all the experts all know exactly where more is needed. Even some targeted incremental improvements and increases if we can’t afford the big ones would help build up the UK 🇬🇧 forces nicely and boost morale. Winning the Ashes would help too! 🏏🇦🇺 🏴
On A more positive note, Tempest seems to be progressing well at present.
“The project uses digital technologies to predict how the aircraft will operate and then makes tweaks to the design. The idea is to save time and money by identifying issues before it is actually built.
A real-life demonstrator will be in the air by 2027 before Tempest itself finally takes shape, replacing the Eurofighter Typhoon.
Engine maker Rolls-Royce has been testing advanced technology for the plane in Bristol while successful ejector seat trials have taken place in Northern Ireland.”
And a bit more good news too! “The UK Royal Navy’s (RN’s) unmanned surface vessel (USV) RNMB Apollo has completed a series of navy and industry open water assurance trials claimed by Thales to be the first UK military clearance of its kind. The safety trials, which were delivered under the joint UK-French Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MMCM) programme, proved that remotely controlled USVs can be operated by a team from a shore-based station and represent a critical stepping stone towards certification of autonomous maritime systems for operational use, Thales said. The trials were conducted by the RN’s Maritime Autonomous System Trials… Read more »
“The first Type 31 integrated combat system is on course to undergo factory acceptance testing (FAT) in the third quarter (Q3) of 2023, Thales has confirmed. Speaking to media at Thales UK’s facilities in Templecombe, UK, Julie Martin, naval senior account director, said that delivery of the first Type 31 mission system was on schedule. “The key focus for us right now on the Type 31 is the fully integrated combat system FAT, which we’ve got coming up in late September this year,” she said. “We’ve got a number of FATs for individual equipments and individual subsystems in the run… Read more »
I’m getting a little bit conspiratorial of late. As the world cleaves into two spheres of influence, there is a barely hidden intention to establish a new political superpower in the West with the US at the centre. But to build a genuine community of nations one has to harmonise currencies, banking and financial rules. This I think, is why the US government is explicitly trying to destroy it’s reserve currency status and the central banks of various states are trying to roll out CBDs at around the same time. Note, our corporate rate has been harmonised at 25% along… Read more »
The killer part for the national defence budget was back in 2010 when George Osborne moved the Trident programme costs from the Treasury to Defence. If that move is reversed( ie;- hand Trident back as a special charge to the Treasury) leave the Defence budget at its present level or a bit and it will go a lot further.
Ian L
The elephant in the room constantly ignored by media and of course HMG.
I think it is important to recognise the difference in the RN escort fleet is not just a game of numbers but capability..many of the RN escorts struggle to defend themselves against air threats at the time let alone escort anything. So the fleet escort composition in 1990 was: the actual strength of the RN escort fleet in 1990 was 46 active escorts…but hidden within that were a lot of ships that were very minimalist and not really up to much. Frigates: of the 33 frigates 13 were leanders, ( these had all been refitted to the max and were… Read more »
Jonathan, don’t try logic on this site nobody’s interested, what they want is fire and brimstone on the MOD/Treasury and Politicians! Everyone knows that we should have 100 escorts! The old days were the best! Even if this is factual nonsense.
Indeed, to be honest I think the area that is the most disconcerting is around RAF fast jet squadrons. They do not need to be anywhere near what they were, but I think in this we need to be honest with ourselves, that although the Typhoon is a far more capable aircraft than the tornado, Jaguar etc ( and the fifth gen f35 a game changer) there are so many less fast jet squadrons than there were in 1990… in-fact I think there were more that Tobias actually noted in 1990 as I counted 38…and less now we only have… Read more »
I have repeated this dramatic loss so many times here, but, assume you are including OCUs in your numbers mate? As many types have one more Sqn than they had.
This area and the drop in RN escorts is what always pains me the most – 60 odd, 50, around 40, 35, 32, 31, 25, 23, 19, 17, now likely 16, is quite frankly….beyond belief for a nation of the Uk’s wealth and standing, and a maritime nation at that!
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Whilst I won’t say, as an ex teacher ex Risk Consultant et etc that it’s a juvenile mistake to compare numbers on these matters. I will say that 50% or so of our sorties are now UAV. So you compare “capabilities” which include UAV and missiles and you would conclude that our current capabilities are an order of magnitude greater than they ever were in peacetime and due to get substantially greater. In particular the air dominance that the F35 gives cannot be overstated. We have never had that in the past.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
good post
Sadly Elwood has no power or influence. Nothing will change. I remain puzzled why we wrote a commitment into law to spend 0.7% on International Aid, but have not ever done similar for our own Defence which is far more important – for this Parliamentary term we should have perhaps had a figure of 2.5% written into law – could be adjusted each Parliamentary term after the latest SDSR/Defence Command Paper.
Hasent the International Aid drop to 0.5%?
It has, temporarily.
British ministry of defence alias ministry of cuts.
Frankly cutting the Lockheed C-130J Super Hercules is a sensible decision for the long term something people who praise the Hercules fail to consider and will seemingly choose to willingly ignore, the Lockheed Hercules like the Boeing Stratofortress has run out of development life, upgrading the avionics is kicking the can down the road, the RAF is clearly deciding to take the short-term pain of losing it now for the long-term gain of far better aircraft down the road as the teething issues of the A400M will get fixed, people’s reaction to something the RAF had planned to do for… Read more »
A-400 should have never been a propeller aircraft.
The C-130 heir is the Embraer C-390
Yeah ideally but there is logic in choosing the turboprop instead of a jet
There certainly is, the Euro logic of developing a brand new engine as part of a huge job creation scheme….
The engine choice servierly damaged the A400 programme, causing massive delay, hugely stoking up costs and damaging exports.
Had they stuck to a proven turbofan, as originally devised with FLA, it would have been a cheaper and more reliable airlifter, in service earlier and probably built up a good number of exports, Futher reducing unit prices.
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….
It’s not so much about the c130j as it is about cutting the number of assets. If replaced on for one by A400s that would be fine. Even an A400 can’t be in two places at once.
Given the A400M plan had it not been reduced most likely by the 2008 crash, would have likely been a Hercules 1 for 1 replacement
Exactly. I’d even bit the hand off for the additonal batch of A400, where are they?
You’re preaching to the wrong crowd this is the UKDJ Nostalgia forum.
Some interesting views about the Nuclear Deterrent of which, as a Cold War Child I fully understand and have supported but let’s think about it? All of our decommissioned nuclear submarine fleet languishes in storage because none have been dismantled – and unlikely to be so as it’s increasingly expensive to do it! Equally, it’ll be cold comfort to us as we are atomised by a nuclear attack on the UK that our own missiles are landing on the aggressor and realising in those few seconds that we had virtually no home missile defence systems to take out ballistic or… Read more »
The US has spent @$280b on ABM defense since 1960. Although it has worked on occasions in ideal test conditions, its effectiveness against an all out attack is generally considered questionable.
Examination of the claimed success of Patriot systems against Iraqi missiles launched at Israel and Saudi Arabia showed that they were almost wholly ineffective,
You realize that was a quarter century ago?
Esteban, you stated that NLaw had a range of 400metres, it’s 800 meters. Yes the javelin has a longer range, but it loses out in every other aspect. Bofors have the intellectual property not the Swedish government. The project was instigated by the UK MOD direct with Bofors, yes amazing they do get some things right. UK has a long standing relationship with Bofors. My old man was in the RA and was a gun aimer on a Bofors gun during WW2.
What when you last had a girlfriend, yes we know, quite sad but you’re not exactly a catch are you!
“Defence Committee Chair warns”… too little, too late. The horrific damage will take years to reverse, and no one has any interest in doing such.
Very true
Isn’t it time for a bit less time in committee’s and a bit more doing? Need some more action a happening chaps!!
Spot on
I like and respect Tobias Ellwood and agree with his sentiments.
Does anyone know what he means when the article stated:
‘Notably, Mr. Ellwood mentioned the cuts to the Type 32 frigate programme’?
I thought the Type 32 was still going ahead; does he know something we don’t???
The type 32 is going ahead
Just because he is on the HoCDSC does not mean he is up to speed on a host of defence issues.
This is a man who was calling for the RN QE Carriers to be used in the Afghan evacuation….a glance at a map and knowledge of the assets we currently posses shows that was a non starter.
So, who says he is accurate with the T32?
And yes, I agree with most of what he says too.
The UK is finished due to Brexit. At the top of society in the UK, there are 1000s of bankers, politicians and influencers who have made millions due to covid backhanders. No bank accounts give good returns on this wealth. There is nothing left in the UK to invest in. So the elite raise interest rates to get the middle and working class out of their homes, they can get massive profits from rental income. The illusion of home ownership will vanish in the UK for the working/middle class by 2035. Next will be the NHS, it will be sold… Read more »
Really doomposter really, drinking too putin propaganda?
Russian finished due to a war Russian midget started and can’t win .I’ve been told by few reliable people you often go on Save the navy site spreading disinformation save the navy site full of Russian trolls more Russian trolls than genuine on that site. Also I believe you are regular on the Column news UK that site a full blown anti British pro Putin conspiracy site .
I’m not sure that comparisons with 30 years ago is entirely helpful. It is difficult to compare, for example, a destroyer from that era to one from today. I think that by and large we have more capable kit but that we are not buying in sufficient quantities. We must drive down the cost per unit and increase quality. we must also invest in smaller autonomous kit to drive down the cost per unit even further.
All good points. Nostalgia just isn’t what it used to be. I’ve just read on another forum that when the Blackburn Beverley was retired in favour of the C130 Hercules there were many loads that could no longer be airlifted by the RAF as they didn’t fit inside. Now, it seems, we can’t do wothout the Herc and everyone slags off the Atlas. So many of the arugments on this forum are driven by nostalgia and half remebered facts!
I’m no expert in the area, but I quite like the A400Ms. I know they’ve had their problems and it may take some time to get them up to speed in some areas, but I think/hope they will prove their worth. I’m not convinced about the “too big to land in places Hercules can” argument.
I expect they will have benefits Hercules hasn’t been able to provide and fail in some abilities the Hercules succeded. We’ll change our operational procedures accordingly.
Exactly. There’s an intreseting video on uTube of a Herc and an Atlas landing on the beach at RAF Pembrey Sands. The Atlas doesn’t seem to need any more space. But I do get the call for a smaller aircraft too – the Spanish C27 is a favourite with the punters, and it’s always good to have alternatives!
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.
Totally OT, BBC just braking story about a ‘tourist’ submersible vising ‘Titanic’ site has gone missing, prompting a major SAR operation!!
Hope they manage to find/recover all, its very deep down there, 4000+ metres!!
Would of course help if I spelt ‘breaking’ correctly!
I don’t know if it is true, I’m reading on the BBC that the passengers are sealed in by bolts from the outside which can only be released from the outside…so no escape chambers beyond being opened by support crew. 😳
I’m sorry, no amount of money would get me in to that tomb. Horrifying.
Hi mate,
just seen a picture of said submersible (its called Titan, operated by Ocean Gate expeditions), believe that you are correct looking at it, doesn’t look to be a entry/exit hatch, so guessing that the passengers/crew go in the front which is then attached and bolted on!!!
Its not currently looking good, no comms is one thing, but the fact that it hasn’t managed to ascend back to the surface is entirely another issue.
Its a long way down to the bottom (2 1/2 miles), can only hope and keep our fingers crossed.
Trying not to think about it….
Mate, as always. Respect. Airborne is right, you lot are as crazy as his lot are, just different! At least you had means of escape in some subsunk situations.
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.
Well said Tobias. Great work he’s done for the nation.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t Ben Wallace supposedly an ally of the Armed Forces at one point? Ellwood is merely paying lip service to everyone who already know how dire a situation, the Armed Forces are in, and have been for a long time.
The ‘Stark’ warning ‘issued’ by Mr Ellwood, is about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.
The way I see it, Ellwood has never got over Ben Wallace getting the Defence Sec job over him, which he presumed was a shoe in , hence all the jabs at Wallace via berating the MOD even got his trouble and strife to attack Wallace. Sorry all I see here is a sore loser
I think this is called an unthinking moment!
A big help would be moving trident and the bomber subs back over the treasury for their funding and cost this only would free up 10s of millions. All money that can put into the day to day problems like running hot water, black mould prevention. The normal day to day running of Defence. The Mod needs to wake up to the harsh reality we can’t maintain every bit of “5 gen” warfare kit or keep going into failed Rnd projects for the sexy headlines like tempest. We need good soil kit build in the uk with off the shelf… Read more »
Time to start the build up of the armed forces ,enough is enough, bad having a useless fxxxxxg idiot government and a banker who was an unelected so called prime minister who knows nothing about anything called sunak,thank god that pile of useless crap will be gone,well starmer and Co had step up to the plate but it a waiting game !!!!!