Poland is set to order more than 3,000 ground vehicles for its Army in the coming years and double the number of troops while it targets spending 5% of its GDP on defence in the future.
In an attempt to replace its largely Soviet-era equipment stocks and spurred on by the increased threat posed by Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, the Polish Armed Forces are undergoing a massive modernisation programme, with plans being outlined recently for an extensive deal with South Korea for tanks, artillery systems and combat aircraft as well as local production, transfer of technology and future cooperation on next-generation systems.
A Memorandum of Understanding is expected to be signed tomorrow between South Korean defence companies and the Polish MoD for what will be South Korea’s largest ever arms deal, likely worth more than £10 billion. Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Minister for National Defence, said that the South Korean companies were chosen as they were the only ones able to provide “weapons of this quality, in such a short time and with such extensive cooperation with the Polish armaments industry.” While discussing the K2 tank, he noted it being “constructed with the participation of US companies” and described it as “compatible” with the Polish Armed Forces.
The purchases will occur in two stages. The aircraft and vehicles delivered as part of the first stage will be manufactured in South Korea, which will rapidly fill gaps left by the transfer of equipment to the Ukrainian Armed Forces and accelerate the modernisation process amid the increased threat posed by Russia. The equipment procured during the second stage will be partially or entirely manufactured and assembled in Poland to the Polish specification, and the first stage equipment will also then be “Polonized” and upgraded to the Polish specification.
The first stage will consist of:
- 180 K2 tanks – Deliveries starting later this year.
- 48 K9 self-propelled howitzers – Deliveries starting later this year, with them being built to the Polish spec from the beginning.
- 12 FA-50 Block 10 aircraft – Delivered in mid-2023.
The second stage will consist of:
- 820 K2PL tanks – Built in Poland.
- Accompanying engineering support and bridging vehicles – Delivered from South Korea.
- > 600 K9PL – Deliveries starting in 2024, production moving to Poland in 2026.
- 36 FA-50 Block 20 aircraft – Built in South Korea but with a service centre being built in Poland in 2026. The Block 20 aircraft will include AESA radars, Sniper targeting pods and Link 16 tactical data link and will be armed with AIM-9X missiles with the option for AIM-120 AMRAAMS to be integrated later.
In addition to the Korean systems, Poland is already acquiring 250 new M1 Abrams tanks of the SEPv3 standard in addition to 116 older M1A1s from US Army stocks, with plans to later upgrade the 116 to the SEPv3 standard.
28 of the tanks have already arrived in Poland for training, and deliveries are expected to be completed in 2025. For the battalions equipped with the M1 Abrams, the Korean AS21 IFV, which is currently being trialled by the Australian Army, is also being considered, with the possibility of incorporating a Polish turret onto these vehicles. Poland also reportedly attempted to acquire an additional 58 Leopard 2 tanks, a type it already operates, from Germany, although the transfer of the more modern 2A7 variant was denied due to prioritising the German Army’s requirements and the risk of affecting their readiness and only 20 of the 2A4 variant which Poland already operates were offered with all 20 being currently unserviceable and expected to take over a year to return to service.
The Polish Deputy Prime Minister said the decision to purchase the FA-50 was based on the recommendations of Polish pilots who flew the aircraft in South Korea and said the Italian M346 currently used by Poland has “too low technical efficiency” compared to 85% availability of the FA-50. The FA-50 also allows easier training with “just a few hours” needed to transfer to or from the F-16, the backbone of their combat aircraft fleet. While Poland attempted to purchase additional F-16s, it was not possible in the required timeframe due to Lockheed Martin prioritising production of the F-35, 32 of which Poland is also purchasing and is currently attempting to accelerate the delivery of.
Following their introduction with great effect in Ukraine, Poland has enquired to the US about the purchase of 500 additional M142 HIMARS guided multiple-launch rocket systems and is also considering the Korean K239 to be purchased alongside or instead of the M142. HIMARS is not the only system Poland has purchased as a result of successful combat employment, with 24 Turkish TB-2 UCAVs on order with the Deputy Prime Minister saying they have “proven themselves”, likely referring to their successful employment in the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh and Ukraine.
Poland is also planning extensive future cooperation with South Korea, expressing interest in their next-generation KF-21 fighter and agreeing to jointly develop future tanks and self-propelled howitzers from the second half of this decade.
To fund this major procurement drive which began in 2019 but has been accelerated and expanded since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Poland, which already exceeds the NATO target of spending 2.4% of its GDP on defence, plans to reach 3% by next year with Jarosław Kaczyński, the leader of Poland’s ruling political party, saying the ultimate target is 5% to create “a strong army for deterrence.” To ensure enough soldiers to crew the new vehicles and fill the two new divisions being created, the Polish parliament passed legislation more than doubling the number of soldiers in the next 5 years to 300,000.
Poland has relied on other countries for much of its procurement and modernisation due to what the Minister for National Defence described as the weakening of the arms industry and the loss of “a lot of valuable competences” combined with the urgent need for a “well-equipped army, not in 10 or 20 years, but now.”
However, the Polish Army’s future main IFV, the Borsuk, is being developed domestically with plans for as many as 1400 to be built and armed with anti-tank guided missiles and a 30mm cannon on a Polish-developed unmanned turret. Additionally, while Poland is producing the AHS Krab self-propelled howitzer, which already utilises the K9’s hull and several of which have been transferred to Ukraine, a number of factors, including limited production capacity, the prioritisation of vehicles ordered by Ukraine on the production line and the manufacturer focusing on starting serial production of the Borsuk IFV means that Poland was forced to rely on foreign solutions.
To counter the significant threat posed by Russian missiles and aircraft as has been seen in Ukraine, Poland has inquired to the US about purchasing 6 more batteries of Patriot surface-to-air missile systems bringing the total to 8 and enabling coverage along the entirety of Poland’s eastern border while also entering talks to purchase 23 batteries of short-range air defence systems, similar to the British Army’s new Sky Sabre and domestically producing 79 Poprad truck-mounted very short-range air defence systems.
OT. RN has a new vessel. XV Patrick Blackett.
User by Navy X.
I thought the Poles might have bought South Korean surface to surface ballistic missiles.
Might be somewhere in phase II or phase III. Get the feeling this initial purchase is just the beginning.
Well the latest Hyunmoo-4 is reported to chuck a 1000kg warhead 800km. A useful deterrent to Russia, I would have thought.
Wow, thats 1000 Modern K2 MBTs and 648 SPGs
Interesting comment regards the purchase of the K2 from the link:
“”The Polish Army has decided against procuring the proposed upgraded heavier 7 roadwheel K2 version shown at 1:06. The K2PL version the Polish Army has decided for will instead be based on the original lightweight 6 roadwheel K2 like the K2NO, only with small changes. Hyundai Rotem themselves acknowledged the 6 roadwheel version does not meet the protection requirements for Europe and proposed a solution, yet the Polish Army buys the base version.””
If they can afford it, they’re positioning themselves to be one of the big-dogs in Europe. I know we’re all allies NATO, EU etc. but do you think France & Germany may react (i.e. not wanting to be overshadowed)?
Stu,
As you pointed out, the purchase (when completed) will reimagine Poland as the premier Military power in Europe. Personally I feel that Berlin will be happy for Poland to pick up that mantle, not sure how France will take it especially regards the development of the so called French/German next gen MBT. Interestingly I feel that the Koreans may have set the cat amongst the pigeons regards future MBT sales across Europe simply due to the Poles setting up a production line to build the K2 seeing as the future Main Ground Combat System isn’t set to come on line until 2040, it will leave a gap for those looking sooner rather than later for something to replace their current stock. I mean Norway is currently evaluating the K2 and then there is the Turkish iteration of the K2 which they have no issues selling. The irony here is the so called common tank which Europe has been looking for could well be Korean.
Poland has already purchased 116 used and refurbished Abrams M1A2 SEPv3 MBTs and has a contract for the purchase of a total of 250 with supporting vehicles and support package. The tanks will start to be delivered later this year.
DanielM wrote:
The mishmash of arms purchases by Poland until the Korean buy has really surprised me, I mean it has the PLT 71, Leo 2 and as you have mentioned the M1 on order. I’m led to believe that the PT71 has been handed over to the Ukraine lock stock and barrel. Leaving just the L2 and M1. The L2 which was meant to get upgraded to A7 standard has been put on hold due to Germany updating all its tanks, but that doesn’t take into account the indigenous Leo2 PL upgrade which only improves the L2 to the A5 standard. Talk about confusing. From what I can see, with the purchase of the K2, the Poles have started afresh.
Apparently the Leopards will retire in 2030
Reserve, training or storage.
I’m not sure buying Korean F-16s and a whole crap ton of tanks and artillery are going to cause them to leapfrog France and Germany.
They will certainly be a major player but France and especially Germany have a completely different level of economy.
Having larger economies means very little when such a small proportion is devoted to defence. If Poland goes ahead with the full scale of this plan, their army is going to be better equipped than anything else in Europe.
Germany isn’t a military power regardless of the size of its economy. France will always remain the EU’s nuclear power, but the reality is Poland will be the continent’s primary conventional land power.
Fact is Poland is arguably the oldest Country in Europe (they certainly claim to be going back to the Slavic victory over the Celts in the 10th Century) and since then barely had 300 years of independence because it’s potential was feared by its neighbours, it was the Poles who relieved Vienna when it was close to falling to the Ottomans.
They are rightfully a proud Nation and finally I think it’s truly going to fulfil its true potential industrially, politically and culturally. It’s had enough of being bullied and invaded by neighbours and think it will be a true powerhouse on various levels within decades. Russia is going to regret stirring this particular hornets nest. I’m glad they are on our side. Isn’t it sad mind that thanks to our own domestic design and production decimation in land fighting vehicles and other areas of defence it will be the South Koreans who will most massively benefit from this.
Deeply short sighted I think and as and when the Ukrainians go shopping, as with Poland we will get some specialised stuff sold no doubt but we simply cannot provide product to anyway match what SK are able to do. Which when you are talking about 10billion in sales could have nicely financed our own very needy military stocks. Which I guess while we pontificate about these threats Countries like Korea and Poland on the front line truly understand the urgency of it and act and preserve capability accordingly.
More recently it was the Poles who stopped the advancing Russian Communist Armies in their tracks in 1920 as they attempted to take over Europe.
Its a wonderful country, I visited a few years back (friend of ours was teaching English and we popped over) I found the Poles a very friendly people and proud of their country and the Beer is to die for.
‘oldest Country’ depends on your definition of the word but, semantics. You’re right, a proud people & rightfully so. I too am glad they’re on our side! All that I have met were lovely (mind you, I say that about every nationality I’ve met – except maybe Russians. Always seemed grumpy, even our waiter, but I understand that’s a cultural thing so try not to hold it against them).
As for the decimation of our own design & production, I agree. Nationalisation & privatisation seems to have had long term effects in the culture within many industries & in defence, affected their willingness to take any initiative. I think that’s slowly changing but too late for many things.
I’m not one for bashing BAE too much as I think they often take the blame for MoD errors but we could ask; where is their Hawk replacement when Boeing plan to make 2,700 T7’s? Where is their KF51 competitor? Where is their MQ9 or MQ4 competitor? Why not partner with Airbus to compete with P8 – they have the tech? But historically, they haven’t developed anything without being asked/paid for it. If I were BAE land systems, right now I’d be willing to spend several million creating a viable Ajax alternative from CV90 and showing it off to everyone as an ‘off the shelf’, ready to go option. Show it to the press & politicians & get them to kick up a stink about it…
As you rightly say, we’re not on the front line so didn’t understand the urgency. Massive error.
With the **** performance of the Russians in Ukraine and Poland ramping up to an army big enough to take on Russia solo the UK has a real opportunity to focus any spending increases on defence towards land and sea. The Russians and the Chinese both pose a much more significant threat at sea than they do on land and it’s likely to be the main area the US, NATO and CANZUK Allie’s need support. The RN has done a great job in husbanding its slim budgets for the past two decades and now has a full spectral force with some of the greatest capabilities on the planet. Some fairly modest budget increases could let it go much further especially in fields such as SSN’s where we could have both capability but also mass on a globally significant scale for just a few billion a year more. This would be much the same as British military policy of the 19th and early 20th century where we had a tiny army with a massive fleet of battle ships on on a military budget that was never in the top 3 globally as now.
The royal navy’s capabilities really set us apart from Europe, only the French come close. Your right to point out that it should be our priority since most European forces are land centric especially with these crazy orders from Poland which other the the US army makes them the most powerful in NATO.
Our needs are different, yes we could do with a larger army but a properly funded navy is where I’d prioritise. Imagine 2 aircraft carriers with 2 proper F35 air wings and escorts etc along with that and if it were up to me I’d double the astute fleet-especially with our new commitments in the Pacific, that and a renewal of the amphibious fleet along with a larger commando brigade and people would stand up to notice.
But alas it all comes down to the budget and having make do, hopefully Liz truss gets elected as she’s promised defence 3%???.
And that post gets a 👍 from me.
The Army is way to powerful in the MoD for that to happen. Apart from Quinn every single Defence Minister including Wallace are ex Army. Do you remember Heapey slagging off the RN a few months back. There hasn’t been a squeak from any of them about the shitstorm of Army procurement by pure coincidence. Finally Wallace opposed Radakin getting the top job in favour of guess.
The thing is from a NATO point of view it would be beneficial for everyone if we did prioritise navy over army, as you point out for the army-the navy has a relatively good procurement system (not perfect) compared to the army. That has allowed it to stand in good stead while the army has been allowed to be hollowed out, for the army to catch up with the rest of Europe it’s going to take literally 10’s of billions over the next decade to even come close to Poland, unthinkable a few years back but that’s what poor management gets you.
It would be far more useful surely to have a better navy for our global challenges than a huge tank force that cannot be easily transported without billions more on transport ships, C17s etc. For me that’s a waste when we can strike anybody anywhere with TLAM, F35’S and commando forces.
Unfortunately as history has shown it’ll get messed about if they do manage to get 3%, so probably won’t matter who gets in.
You make perfect sense but it will never happen sadly.
The army has not chosen to be cut time and time again and now heading to a mere 73,000. Politicians have ordered it. Also what is this about a huge tank fleet? We are heading to a mere 148 tanks. Would you rather we had none? We have never had a problem deploying tanks overseas since 1916. Realistically you don’t move tanks by C17, you move them by sea, and we have the ability to do that. Don’t forget that the army actually do warfighting, I don’t think the Navy has done so since 1982.
The army has allowed itself to become the victim of said cuts due to a poor procurement history and where are said generals speaking out against the cuts? They happily make do to protect there fat wallet’s. The point is if any extra cash became available who would you trust to spend it? at the very least the navy’s build strategy sustains 10s of thousands of jobs.
The army gets 148 tanks because of the tight budget, if we hit that magical 3% then is it unreasonable to add to those numbers? We however would be making a costly mistake because the rest of NATO is going to become well stocked with better tanks soon so why follow? The integrated review although a bit hashed layed out where the army should be heading in smaller groups of rapidly deployable, highly specialised brigades. That is where we should be going with the army.
I find that a bit of an insult to state the navy hasn’t done any warfighting, every day in iraq-afghanistan the marines were taking it to the enemy. Joint force helicopter/harrier we’re saving/taking lives, camp bastion had a detached of navy medics wating to receive army casualties.
The truth is as you have Said is the army can’t move quickly or with heavy loads without the navy/air force to transport them beyond local theatre. If we want a bigger army as the defence minister only said yesterday I think is, we also need a bigger navy to move them.
“I don’t think the Navy has done so since 1982.” My days in Bosnia, Iraq & Afghanistan must be a bloody dream? The causualtues I did first aid on muse also been a dream!
The Navy provided the Royal Marines and RN medics who went with British Army units.
The sniping about different services needs to stop. It’s the politicians who are failing everyone. We need an extra 1% of GDP spent our rebuilding our Armed Forces ASAP. There’s no way our forces will be able to prosecute any objective with our current numbers and assets. It’s always “enough”. What happened to depth? To reserve? One disaster, one major loss would see huge numbers killed and the UK at risk.
Remember, had there not been sufficient reserve in 1982, the Falklands would have been a loss. One more T42, or that Chinnock lost, would have saw national humiliation. I don’t think the country is ready for the fallout this would bring!
Absolute spot on brother 👍
100% agree sir.
Only minor addition, rather than 1% extra spend, how about 1% extra spend + a one off bump to get a few things back on track.
I’d also suggest a bloody serious conversation be had in public & parliament about what we actually want our forces to be capable of so we can all agree & then agree to pay for it. Been asking too much from too few for too little for too long.
👍 well said
Ianbuk, my comments were about the big, expensive platforms (surface ships and submarines) – not the commandos or medics. Sorry if that was not clear.
Seems daft to constantly (and savagely) cut the army when they do so much warfighting. There are many (mostly Americans) who say we failed in Afghanistan and Iraq – and that was largely (but not solely) down to insufficient boots on the ground. The regular army cannot now deploy a brigade (+) on an enduring operation.
Totally agree we need to get that 3% and rebuild all of our Armed Forces.
I think the reason the army has experienced constant manpower cuts is precisely because manpower is ‘expensive’ and the army has more bods that the other 2 services – also it has hundreds of platforms and it there must be a perception that the army could lose significant numbers and still somehow manage to do the job whereas if you cut 2 or 3 type 45s there would be all hell to pay.
Land Forces need an industrial strategy and is finally getting one.
I fully agree that army AFV procurement has been a disaster. The integrated review and the related SDSR did not criticise the validity of heavy armour. You think we should accept continental Europe bearing the brunt of mechanised warfare – I agree, but it doesn’t mean we should have quite such a paltry force.
My comment about warfighting was all about those very big and expensive RN platforms – surface ships and submarines – that do good work but do precious little warfighting. I would never denigrate the RM commandos (who I served with in Bastion) or the navy medics. It was to make the point that it seems daft to atrophy the army who do so much warfighting.
Parts of the army can move quickly eg 16 AA Bde. Has it mattered in the past that medium and heavy armour takes days or weeks to get to Theatre (depending on where it is)? We didn’t miss Gulf War 1 or 2 or the Balkan conflicts.
Main thing in the navy’s favour is trade deals. TPP and USA are the biggest we are chasing and an increased navy presence in the Far East is key to both. A bigger army is key to the EU however the commission is so far detached from reality that it won’t offer any kind of deal to Britain no matter how many tanks we can send to Poland. The UK standing in NATO is as high as it’s ever been but it’s based on intelligence, ISTAR and weapon sales rather than armoured divisions. The army is about to cluster **ck yet another vehicle program in Ajax, it’s going to be hard to sell any politician on a bigger army with the possible exclusion of more MLRS and precision fires. With massive diplomatic industrial successes like T26 and possibly SSN(R) for the navy and Tempest for the air force the army will have a hard time maintaining its post 1945 hold over the MOD.
Apart from the last line agree 100%. We will need to wait and see what happens at the MoD when Truss takes over but i’m not as optimistic as you. Right now i’d settle for the RN and RAF keeping their share of the budget.
Think I’m hopeful rather than optimistic 😀
I had not thought that the army has had some sort of vice-like hold over MoD for 77 years. The army has been reduced in manpower once or twice per decade since the end of the Korean War. In going to 73,000 this will be a reduction of nearly 50,000 posts since that deemed an appropriate size for the post Cold War army. The army lacks artillery in sufficient numbers, its AFV fleet and artillery is elderly and largely unmodernised. Equipment fielded in the early 1960s is still in service.
People seem to forget that the army has actually been doing warfighting all these years, and needs to be rejuvenated.
David, what did Heapey say about the Navy?
No prob. Minister calls for Royal Navy warships to be more ‘lethal’
May 5, 2022
UKDJ
Hopefully Truss will follow through on the 3% pledge. With 50% more spending I should hope that’s enough spending to boost all 3 services without much arguing. Even if it was split evenly the RN could afford to double the escort fleet.
Except they have already started counting Ukranian aid as Defence Budget.
To be a pessimist.
Zero optimism that the 3% will ever happen. They’ll say anything to get into power then spend their time in power finding lies and excuses as to why they didn’t do it. What’s promised should be legally binding, especially in general elections.
I would also like to see a significant uplift in attack submarines. We have only 4 that are deployable, given that one is needed to defend the bomber.
All good points, but please don’t forget that our army actually gets used in warfighting year on year.
To me we need to invest in our army still. Realistically the types of wars we are going to fight in the coming years will be proxy wars and counter insurgency, supporting the US, like we have done for decades in the past. We have to be able to deliver on that.
Once the ground forces are adequately geared, then we need to focus on the navy and policing roles.
I agree however I don’t think getting the army back up to 100,000 or doubling the number of tanks is what’s needed. Better to have a smaller army that’s the best equipped in the world. If the army is going to go for mass then it should be on precision fire like HIMRAS or MLRS. It can then focus on C4 ISTAR which it can combine with long range precision fire to achieve an over match against any non NATO army. In fairness this is largely what was outlined in the last army update. If the army is to go back to 100,000 in a 3% of GDP world then it should just add more infantry and rocket artillery. Armoured divisions are too expensive and increasingly vulnerable. We could easily afford to go up to two or three hundred MLRS type weapons systems which would give the army strategic effect for the first time in decades.
I do think we need more boots. We found in Iraq/afgan that deploying 10-20k personnel for long periods was a struggle and that the number was totally inadequate for the job at hand. Following on from those lessons we decided to cut the number further.
What number is sufficient to do the job is hard to tell, if you look at the Kosovo war, we offered to provided 50k troops, no way we could do that in 2022.
It all comes down to where we see our place in the world. We won’t realistically be under direct attack, so we will be free to deploy as little or as many troops as we like in the next war, just a question of the military being able to meet policticans expectations / over promises.
If we look at Iraq and Afghanistan the clear lesson is don’t invade someones country and spend two decades trying to fix their s**t for them. We could have had a British army of 1 million and it would make no difference. We know that because the USA had 1 million and achieved f**k all in the end. Kosovo might have been different as it might have been a solo British effort that did need mass. However 200 MLRS batteries guided by drones satellites and the worlds best intelligence system could probably f**k up anyones day. We could easily afford that. We can’t easily afford 125k in the army and three armoured divisions. Manoeuvre warfare is increasingly over. Deep strike and precision fire is the future and it’s what we can afford. Nation building should be consigned to the dustbin other than maybe through a UN role. Less soldiers more drones and missiles is what the army needs and will get.
Totally agree. In addition for the troops we do have we give them the best protection, arms, intelligence, tools, support they need to enhance their capability and safety.
True, our army actually does warfighting at scale consistently over time, as well as all the other stuff.
Martin and Fosterman.
Interesting. I’ve been going on about two properly equipped carriers and so on for the the last two years and I generally get accused of being in fantasy land. I’m fully aware as you are about difficult budgets but It’s good to have a couple of posts from people who can see the same things I do.
With the new F35 orders you may be virtually there pretty soon. Depends on how much time they spend at sea however as we saw with the USMC deployment to CSG 21 it’s pretty easy to embark off board F35’s on to a CVF. It’s not like with a US CVN where they need a 6 month work up. That being said getting 36 onboard for an exercise should be a priority as soon as possible as should some form of permanently embarked drone force.
We don’t need 2 fully equipped carriers for any realistic operation. In most realsitic wars, carriers aren’t even needed, as land bases will be available, and in the worst case we have the 2 anyway that could be put to sea.
The issue with 2 carrriers operational isn’t the carrier’s or jets themselves but the escorts needed. It would tie up the whole navy, meaning it would not able to do other tasks. Either that or we send a carrier undefended, and lose the whole point of a carrier in peacetime which is statement of power, in effect it would make the UK look weaker as it would be clear it couldn’t keep its commitments.
We don’t need two carriers until we need them as in the Falklands and please don’t tell me ,as some do here, that it’ll never happen because it was that attitude that caused the war in the first place.
You contradict yourself in your first paragraph. ” we don’t need two carriers……but in the worst case we have two anyway” How does that work. No crew, no aircraft, not worked up for sea…
Your point about escorts is well made and we do need more. However the point with two carriers is they could operate in different ways. One in a UK led task force or as a sovereign force, the other in the Atlantic with, for example a UK, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian escort.
We won’t need 2 carriers for Falklands MK2, as 1 QE could easily provide same air power as the 2 from then and some. In theory we could fill 1 QE with over double the number of jets as we sent down there.
Don’t forget we have two, if needed the second could be rushed into front line service like what happened during the Falklands, but then your talking extreme situation, not average deployment.
My thinking is what capability are we most likely to actually need in the realsitic short to medium term. Not what we would like or what tells a good newstory but what we will actually need for whatever war our policticans decide to enter. My thinking boots on the ground would be more needed than carriers, not saying they aren’t needed, just less needed.
Steve. Sorry. I really don’t think it’s worthwhile my responding other than to say I really do not understand where your coming from on this. We are I’m afraid fundamentally opposed in our opinions.
I think we can all agree the MODs handling of defence isn’t what it should be nor is the governments.
The reality is we need a bigger army, navy and air force but Its going to come down to constant government reviews and stupid short sighted cost cutting.
Bang on my friend. Will it ever change? Liz Truss maybe? Fingers crossed.🙄
I have to say I mostly agree with you here. You are right btw Truss did promise 3% (but we’ll see).
Personally, and perhaps no revelation to many, I believe the UK’s military funding priorities should be the Navy, Air Force, Army, in that order. Due entirely to our nations geography.
That being said I think we all agree the British Army is well below what most us would consider even to be the minimum level in men and material than required. Though the other services are in only marginally better state (bare bones, though capable).
That’s the funding pattern pre 1939, worked pretty well then when we had zero allies would work even better Now that we are allied with the greatest military force in history. I am not against Army funding but the fact is with our budget we could have a super power class navy or at best a mid sized army. We had to have a larger army post 1945 as NATO lacked conventional forces relative to the Warsaw Pact. Now just Poland can probably stop any threat from Russia on its own there is no need for UK armoured divisions on mass. The army becomes expeditionary in nature, it’s use discretionary. With the threat at sea from Russia and China the navy is increasingly important to both us an NATO. Especially when the USN is over focused on colonial policing, power projection and anti ballistic missile operations to the detriment of under sea warfare and MCM or counter UUV roles.
This, I’d wager, is the kind of level of armour and long range power projection that should give Russia pause for thought. Had NATO been equipped like this on its Eastern flank I estimate Russia would have put off the invasion of Ukraine. Esp. if Poland and Ukraine had decided to do a few joint exercises around Kyiv.
Absolutely so Poland and Ukraine have close relations and shared culture and history, indeed till Russia as usual re wrote others borders some of Ukraine was Poland. So many naive and ignorant blame NATO for this when any basic understanding of Russian history and Putin knows this is just another land and power grab to intimidate neighbours. Well it’s now truly going to get a growing giant close to it’s border with a will to fight similar to the Ukrainians and even beyond that a NATO no matter it’s pre ious often dubious will to stand up and fight realising it now has little choice but to strengthen and commit to doing so. But it’s the likes of Poland who will give NATO its heft and spirit on the front line which beyond the high quality professional forces and equipment of the rest of us is in doubt as societies which is equally important when one considers the iffy nature of Turkey on the South Eastern flank and anyone who has been to Krakow will be stunned by the long history of resisting them and keeping them from overrunning Europe.
The most obvious follow-on target for Russia is Poland’s Suwalki Gap, of course. Cut that and the Baltic States are within Putin’s grasp with NATO having to recover from the back foot. Knocking Russia for six in Ukraine is the shortest route to delaying the above, but after that, Poland’s rearmament scores in directly protecting herself, boosting NATO, neutering Vlad’s Baltic State ambitions and reducing resort to a nuclear option.
All without directy threatening Kaliningrad, which could conceivably end up wondering upon which side it’s bread is buttered, though likely after Belarus has reached the same conclusion.
Food for thought.
The most obvious follow-on target is Moldova.
• Not a NATO member so no worries about Article V
• Far smaller nation than Ukraine
• Already has a region, Transnistria, controlled by Russian backed separatists and supported by Russian troops.
Given Russia’s performance in Ukraine, the only way it will be able to conquer Ukraine and then threaten another country is if:
• Western support for Ukraine stopped
• China started supplying weapons and munitions to Russia, AND if Russia fully mobilised its population.
The only issue for the West, can we keep up the supply of ammunition and weapons. Ukraine is burning through our stocks and ramping-up or even restarting production takes time.
Kaliningrad is populated with mortal ethnic Russians with the military dominating the local economy. They’ll be staying loyal to Putin, and if not, the military based there would soon ensure obedience.
Interesting foil, Sean. In terms of joining industrially vital Russian territory with a much larger vassal state over a shorter distance, then strategically my choice stands, I feel. As events stands, probably both are beyond the pale.
As we’ve commented at various times, the commitment of the west to Ukraine remains paramount. Balancing the weapon supply with risk to NATO stocks is currently our principal focus of attention, it seems. Easy to envisage how China gains from this potential imbalance of power without lifting a finger, let alone providing covert help to Russia.
However, you can only fight, and hopefully, win the war in front of you, not the next, or you risk losing both possibly. Cranking up is already centre stage, and will serve us in good stead, if all allies (politicians) absorb the warning. Ukraine could well prove ‘beneficial’ to us in the longer term, though under the caveat that the price is Ukrainian blood, as ever.
Is Russia capable of taking on Poland after their Ukrainian operation?
Not if together we hold them in Ukraine i.e. the current war. Putin will claim success, but results and failures will be obvious. Loss of the whole Black Sea coast would be our failure, so cannot occur. But Putin has vowed to take back ‘his’ empire, so who knows what he’ll try; it’s insanity by any normal yardstick. However, a credible recent biography has quoted he has never known how to back out of a fight once committed, if you recall. He’s absolutely got to learn that now.
My view,
Rgs
Poland is buing K10, MoD say that on the last Conference
Poland in the 2030’s
*2nd largest MBT fleet in NATO
*2nd largest IVF fleet in NATO
*2nd largest SPG fleet in NATO
*2nd largest GBAD fleet in NATO
*2nd largest standing army in NATO
Putin must be really p*****
And yet everyone else in Europe hides behind them…
Hides behind what? The chips on your weak shoulders?
I have long thought that the weight of NATO’s in-place land forces in Europe should come from Poland, Germany, (and possibly Italy and Spain too) – and that we should play a supporting role with a somewhat smaller (but not tiny) army, with the US reinforcing.
Spot on, we are in a position where we are a hub between Europe and the US. In the event of a major ground war on the continent we will be playing a supporting role using rapidly deployable forces to plug gaps until the US army can deploy on mass. The royal navy needs to own the north Atlantic and keep trade routes open for as long as possible until the US numbers make a difference. Same with the RAF.
All of this is in place except in the army, where for numerous reasons it’s been allowed to be downscaled without a thought and has a problem in procurement. The only way out is to spend, spend, spend but will they??
I just realised I missed out France! But they don’t always turn up, do they!
The Americans thought we had failed in Afghanistan and Iraq (post-invasion) – I don’t agree but we under-performed for several reasons most notably lack of boots on the ground – we should have sent an infantry division into Helmand, not a brigade (+). The downscaling of the army will result in either ‘fails’ and high casualties or an inability to take on certain operations in the first place.
I think it does. The Russians are arrogant but they cant be stupid. Those K2s and Abrahms tanks will make mincemeat of all Russian MBTs. Whilst the K9 howitzer has secured 65% of all self propelled howitzer sales world wide since its inception.
The Polish are building an army not to just face and resist the Russians (and anyone else for that matter) but to defeat them in the field.
I applaud their determination and focus. They can see what has worked in Ukraine and are formatting an army around those concepts of delivering overwhelming force at focussed point. Then shift. Relocate and hit another focus point.
Staggering ammounts of artillery and MLRS wanted.
They’re only buying the K9 because local production of the Krab can’t keep up with their demand and the manufacturer is also focussed on starting production of their domestic IFV so cannot increase K9 production. The Krab uses the K9 chassis but the AS90 Braveheart turret which they consider superior to that on the K9.
“The Krab uses the K9 chassis but the AS90 Braveheart turret which they consider superior to that on the K9.”
I doubt that. Then why are the Poles ditching the AS90 turret for the K9 turret? Also, it’s the K9 that’s won 65% of all SPH sales internationally, not the Krab. Additionally, you can’t marry the Krab to the K10 ammunition resupply vehicle and everyone who buys the K9 almost always also buys the K10 ammunition resupply vehicle, so everyone must consider it tactically important if they are willing to shell the cash for it.
• You can doubt that as much as you like, but it’s a fact which 2mins of googling would confirm if you weren’t so lazy.
• They’re ditched the K9 turret for the Braveheart turret when designing the Krab because they thought it was better. But they can’t produce the Krab fast enough which is why they are now buying complete K9’s from South Korea.
• The Krab only recently entered production, of course the K9 has outsold it. But again, you’re too lazy to look up the facts.
• They aren’t buying the K10.
So not only are you too lazy too Google about the Krab turret, you’re too lazy too read my comment so I’ve had to repeat myself here, and it seems you’re too damn lazy to read the original article which details what they are and what they aren’t buying. Or is that you can’t cope with words with more than one syllable?
Idiot.
The decisive decision making and the actual delivery schedules are also very “staggering”! Hope the UK MOD can get some of that kind of energy and thinking and moves up some gears where they can. 🇬🇧!!
That’s an insane amount of varied kit you train on, use and maintain!
Im jelous i wish we had a plan and the funding! I hope Liz Truss when she gets elected grows a pair and rebuilds our tiny overstretched and outgunned military quickly.
She may well do given her commitment to 3% of GDP. Poland do not have anywhere near the range of abilities we do. They are rightly concentrating on ground forces and an Air Force they can afford. Compare that to the RN and RAF and we are streets ahead in almost every domain. It’s horses for courses.
We are heading in a good direction, yes more money will help.
What are you talking about? Streets ahead… No reasonable air group for the carriers or the tiny number of escorts… The UK can deploy at most at the moment two submarines. And the RAF just keeps shrinking into oblivion. But yes we’ve got the US rental SSBN threat… Sometimes the UK arrogance is just mind numbing to me
This doesn’t even deserve a response. It’s back to French internet for you
If course it deserves a response. If you can’t factually refute his points then you just look like you have your head in the sand.
Damn, you’re on two accounts here trying to start fights? I’m truly sorry that you’re French, but moaning on a forum comment section won’t help
I have one account.
You attempted to start a fight with the original poster with your post about being French (using nationality as an insult is both childish and inappropriate) instead of factually refuting his points.
Forum comment sections are open for cheerleading or moaning. Neither of those things do any good but they make us feel better.
Whilst very inclusive of you “Esteban” has a history of generally making derogatory posts about the UK. If challenged or asked where he comes from he accuses people of racism
Mate esteban is a grumpy troll and talks shite to illicit response. He doesn’t seem to like the Brits, and you can read his previous childlike negative and abusive comments if you scroll through them!
Agree, do not feed the troll
Oh! I just did. Oh well, he never replies anyway.
“Streets ahead…”
Does Poland have nukes. No.
Does Poland have Aircraft Carriers. No.
Does Poland have F35. No.
Does Poland have SSN. No.
Does Poland deploy around the world. No.
Does Poland have a UKSF that can and does deploy worldwide on ops with their depth of expertise. No.
Does Poland have the logistics tail to deploy. No.
Does Poland have our overseas bases. No.
Does Poland have SSBN. No.
Does Poland have UKUSA/5 Eyes infrastructure around the world. No.
Does Poland have the worldwide network that UK Intelligence has. No.
Does Poland have our amphibious knowhow. No.
Does Poland have escort ships in the Atlantic or a blue water navy. No.
Does Poland have a RFA equivalent. No.
Does Poland spend billions on R&D. No.
Does Poland have GOSCC. No.
Does Poland have Pathfinder. No.
Does Poland have our Soft Power commitments. No.
Does Poland have the NHS and the cost that entails. No.
Does Poland have a 200 billion plus social security/benefits bill. No.
I could go on and on and on.
“But yes we’ve got the US rental SSBN threat”
You’ve not the foggiest what you’re talking about, and the deterrents situation regards sovereignty and operational use has been explained to you before. Ignored. The SSBN are not rented for starters, neither are the MIRV. Nor the fire chain, nor AWE, nor the ability to launch. We do liaise with the US Strat Com in targeting regards the SIOP, and between places like LNL and AWE.
And here you are, still sniping away at us nobodies.
RobW is correct, and your desperation to try to belittle gets even more obvious.
Poland has different circumstances and spends well on what it prioritises, which are not the geopolitical commitments of the UK, but a large land force.
Your response to trolls and muppets are always so more informative and mature than mine Daniele! Don’t change, it’s a team effort, you do the education of these half wits and Sean and I will continue to hand them their arses now and then 😂😂😂👍
Lol morning mate! 😆 half wits, lol
Does Poland have fish and chips, does Poland have…. You’ve quite made my morning my friend.😂
Well Trolls coming out with bollocks need putting in place mate. I could have gone on, I didn’t include our air landing capability with C17, Atlas, and around 60 Chinooks.
The other thing I should have said, of course, is that you were right in everything😎 you said.
You have repeated the “rental SSBN” mantra on various articles and are still getting it wrong. We build the subs and all decisions on when to use it are ours alone. It is very much a sovereign ability.
You say we aren’t streets ahead and then describe two areas that Poland has precisely no ability in, carriers and SSNs. Like it or not (and it is plain to see that you don’t) we do have a broad spectrum of abilities that are top notch. The mass isn’t there and our army is in a state, but that doesn’t mean my statement was false.
Oh and by the way, we have ordered 74 F35Bs and will soon be able to field a carrier at all times with around 36 5th gen aircraft plus helos. That is a decent air wing. More than decent.
We are not perfect and yes we need more money to solve the issues, but we are still streets ahead of many given our range of abilities.
None of these comments are meant to denigrate Poland, who are focusing on their main threat from land. They will have a far bigger and better army than us on current plans.
Exactly this. I’m a Pole living in The UK. That’s for introduction. Now: you’re right to tell that Britain must focus on what you are most capable already: navy, airforce, intelligence. Poland must focus on land (and air), not jus because of Russia, but also because our only see is Baltic, huge lake too be honest, and we never have been see power or have had ambition in that direction, we don’t even have know how about this, that’s why this three frigates from The UK (plus maybe some submarines) are enough for our needs.
You are just buying the frigate designs from us, they are being built in Poland. As you say, more than enough. The build up of your armed forces is impressive, including the recent Apache announcement. Once it is all in place you’d make mincemeat of Russia’s army on your own.
The full potential we shall reach by 2030 if everything will work. To be honest it’s very ambitious project and I’ll be happy if we’re going to accomplish 2/3 of what was announced. Still we’ll lack enough power in airforce as Americans have their production schedule stuffed with orders for next decade.
That’s why we have friends. NATO can help with air power if needed. You could always join the Tempest program 😀
If I could only decide myself not government, but who knows how it’s going to be, The UK and Poland are pretty close allies so we’ll see.
And the
Sad chip on your shoulder
Is mind numbing to us!
Just thought I’d make you work a bit to read my reply to your lip quivering, emotional posts! Don’t worry, it’s ok, you can always dress up and pretend to be an army man!
Indeed, it’s a party election not a manifesto pledge.
Meaningless..
It’s not meant to be a top tier fighter but is good for it’s size, especially having an AESA radar. Their primary fighter aircraft is the F-16 and they also have 32 F-35s on order. It is manufactured by a close ally of the US and as noted by the Polish Deputy Prime Minister is quite similar to the F-16 so allows easy retraining between the types and offers much better serviceability than the M346 currently used by Poland. It also uses primarily US-made weapons and sensors. It goes supersonic, doesn’t need ‘stealth’ (many combat missions don’t need ‘stealth’) and as you said is a light fighter so you can’t expect a massive payload capacity.
“offers much better serviceability than the M346 currently used by Poland.”
That is ridiculous since Poland even increased their initial M-346 order.
Which this Korean plane lost to btw.
The issue is that despite the same appearance of being same class the Korean place is significantly bigger weight and powerplant.
Max take off weight 12-3t vs 9.6t
Speed 1.5M vs 0.9M
So the Korean aircraft is much more performing for combat. And of course a pilot wants to be in a more performing aircraft.
The only advantage that M-346 has is that has 2 engines so in face of small arms fire or missile fragments should have a modicum more survivability but that is obviously not enough to tip the scales.
Go Poland, Great stuff. I’ve seen €10-14 billion cost for this. Can that be for all the stuff listed? Great deal.
Some stuff coming quickly and some more coming in the years after. Maybe this polish tank development of the K2 could be good option for other countries when it’s ready.
I wonder what vehicle transporters and support vehicles they are going to buy?
Korea has done a great job turning out proper defence products. Just shows what’s possible if you stop messing around bespoke kit and upgrades.
Its not having to fly that far or as we’ve seen fight against a highly technical opponent. While its not cutting edge I’d guess it would be sufficient to drop stuff where required. They’re also looking at the ‘fancier’ Korean jet. In fairness to Poland after spunking a vast fortune on a hoofing big land army (and it sounds pretty impressive) they’re maybe hoping their NATO allies can chip in with the aircraft if needed.
Poland know one part of the game with Russia is numbers.
Having second class fighters is good to go after Russian helicopters, Su-25, UAV’s and other less performing Russian assets.
It makes complete sense what they are doing.
It is strange people think war is only between major assets.
It makes sense to me too, they still have their F16’s and looking at the KF21’s and wanting F35’s too so its not like they’re skimping. There have been plenty on here wanting tranche 1 Typhoons and even Hawks kept on as spare capacity, the F50’s are definitely a step up from Hawks and I’m assuming cheaper and easier to maintain (85% availability) than something like an old Typhoon. From the outside looking in, it all looks pretty impressive from a defence perspective.
The Russian fighters will be occupied fighting First Class Polish fighters unless they want to be in an unfavourable position.
Jay, did you read the bit about wanting more F16’s ??
“The FA-50 also allows easier training with “just a few hours” needed to transfer to or from the F-16, the backbone of their combat aircraft fleet. While Poland attempted to purchase additional F-16s, it was not possible in the required timeframe due to Lockheed Martin prioritising production of the F-35″
It looks like Poland are wanting to beef up their capability and are wanting F-35’s long term but want something NOW. Its not like the FA-50 is total junk.
Its not the front line aircraft is it, it will simply be a force multiplier to boost the capability of the much higher end aircraft they will have.
It will also in the short term boost the available numbers to the polish air force so if the s*it really hits the fan they can at least defend themselves on a very short term basis.
The Russian air force has hardly been world class in this and has taken a huge back seat in Ukraine.
Poland also has massively better air defences than what Ukraine has especially as it has a fair amount of Nato kit based in the country another reason the Russian air force would not be such a threat within the territory.
That’s a hell of an impressive investment. Without knowing Polish Geopolitics in any great depth, it sounds like they’re fed up of being Russia’s plaything over the years and determined for it not to happen again. That’s a LOT of tanks and stuff.
Majority of Poles were born under Russian occupation and a lot lived in exile because of it.
Some of this is really hard to understand.
The aircraft make no sense at all IRL. The Poles have ordered 32 F35A, sensible, and gave a decent fleet of F16, useful, but then to add some low performance aircraft makes little sense.
I mean if you think you are fighting MiG29’s and T72’s forever then it all makes sense.
But we know, from Ukraine, that a smaller number of highly capable aircraft in combination such as F35 + Typhoon + Apache would take apart the Russian tacticless tanks. So having observed that lesson as well as the lesson of command and control quality: Poland heads back to sheer mass?
I get why they don’t want their nice pretty country invaded, again, by nasty murdering orcs. At that level this makes perfect sense. But some of this Hi – Low mix is a little too low.
There again they want to up arm NOW, in their words, and not wait for the Eurofudge projects to glacially edge forwards……
Here is a thought, which makes you wonder what could have been.
Poland are buying some 200 K2 tanks at approx Euro 9 million a piece for delivery by 2024.
UK upgrading 149 30yo C2-C3 standard for some £1.3 billion (approx Euro 9 million a tank)which we might start getting into service by 2027, perhaps….
Interesting don’t you think!
Interesting but how do IRL capabilities compare?
I don’t think the K2 hull is that special?
UK is very, very good at designing and producing defence kit. The problem with producing gold standard is the cost.
CH3 is gold standard.
Gold standard keeps our servicemen alive – not a single Chally has been lost to enemy fire.
All true Sean, but history shows us the reverse is also true.
In WW2 the Wehrmacht had arguably the two best tanks of the war – Tiger 1 and Panther, whilst the main Russian MBT was the T34.
Some 45000 T34s were destroyed during the war, unfortunately for the Germans, the Russians built some 58000 between 1941-45!!
The US M4 Sherman was also outclassed by those two tanks, but they produced some 49000 during the war.
Numbers count!
Or “quantity has a quality of its own” as Stalin said, but then he was quite happy to see his own men being mowed down… and probably killed just as many citizens if the USSR as Hitler did.
As we’ve seen in Ukraine, Russia’s vast superiority in tank numbers has counted for nothing, they’ve lost 1,700 of them and now reverted to waging an artillery campaign because they lost the tank campaign.
Ultimately following any dogma to extremes will lead to failure. Churn out out fast numbers of tanks that last 5 mins in battle is going to lose you a war. Produce a few high end expensive tanks that are never destroyed, but so few in number that they have no tactical effect, will also lose you the war.
What’s difficult is getting the exact centre between these two extremes so you get the perfect balance between quality and numbers. Which is why I defer to the professionals in our armed services who are paid to make this determination. It’s not one that would help my sleep habits.
Hopefully our (soon-to-be) 138 tanks will last more than a few days in the next major conflict.
The K2 has hard kill missile defence and radar with 10km range. In Russia I don’t know if s single tank has been taken on front to front using the main gun. So how important if heavy front armour when ranges are 5, 10, 15km and consist of missiles and artillery?
Hi mate, wouldn’t disagree ref capabilities, believe that the C3 will be superior.
The actual point i was alluding to, given the approx equivalent costs per unit are;
1: Poland getting more units for same price.
2: It’s a new tank with the same gun, ours is a refurbished b30yo design.
3: Polish units will be ready by 2024, C3 won’t be untill 2027-2030!!
4: Polish government give Polish army what it needs when it needs it, whereas we for several reasons don’t!!!
Believe that we have made several errors in our approach to this, just to keep a non existent capability in work! It’s in the past, so we will have to live with it, but the Poles are certainly showing our process up for what it is!
Id agree with that – in true ‘spend more to get less’ mode converting CR2 into CR3 offers poor value im my opinion.Poland has broken the mold in MBT Procurement in Europe going for the K2 -if they get that Tank in the numbers specified thats one healthy developement line going into the future for upgrades etc,plus the Turkish Altay is related to it as well.As good as CR3 looks to be its open to the same delays and problems as Warrior encountered,plus yet again its a niche UK product with little to no future developement potential.
Hi Paul, agree with you.
Added to the fact that we won’t have them much before 2027, with the majority being available post 2030!!
I do wonder if this was the right upgrade – hindsight is wonderful I know, given that many countries will be fielding a new gen MBT by early to mid 30’s while C3 will have just reached FOC by then.
Perhaps we should have gone for a more modest upgrade, kept the gun despite ammo issues and just got on with the sensors/Comms/engine/Trophy.
For the same cash we could have upgraded more, certainly had them back in service far sooner.
In the meantime got on with deciding what we need from a MBT in the future and joined a NGT consortium from the outset, as opposed to being behind the curve when these new tanks are introduced.
Others have posted similar views, our approach just doesn’t really make any sense from a military perspective.
The way I understand it they were after new build F16’s but LM is too busy on F35’s . The Korean aircraft is basically an F16 and is available now with minimal training requirements. Reliability and maintainability are above legacy F16 and very likely has good spares commonality. Seems like LM have missed a sale here.
Actually, LM has partnered with Korea Aerospace Industries to work on marketing, and improving, the FA-50 together. LM owns 20% of the basic T-50 / FA-50 joint venture.
Go Poland. After what Russia and Germany have done to them in recent history.
Impressive army.
With numbers like that I just hope that the Poles don’t decide to go and get some revenge on Russia on their own. With 1300 tanks and 650 SPGs the 150 MBTs the UK brings to the field is laughable. Possibly it is time for the UK to concentrate on the RN and RAF with an army that can be used to defend the UK and for NATO as a light mobile flanking army that can be deployed by air or sea.
Yes yes the Poles have thousands of tanks, thousands of artillery pieces and hundreds of rocket launchers. And yet I’d take the British military everyday. Firstly, I think everyone agrees that the Army’s job is not to defend, and not to fight frontline battles. We are an island; our frontline is the navy. Our army is purely expeditionary, and unlike any other country in the world, except for our good friend the US, we have the capability to move that army places and supply it there. Our intelligence capabilities are unmatched in Europe. Our ISTAR capabilities are enviable. Our Air Force, with its continued procurement of stealth fighters and promising development of Europe’s only realistic sixth gen fighter programme (Euro FCAS is bogged down and even Dassault has said it likely won’t get anywhere soon), remains Europe’s finest. Then there’s the missile question; we have Storm Shadow, along with smaller missiles like Brimstone and Spear 3 that we can claim as sovereign. Then we get to your main point, army numbers. The K2 that the Poles have chosen is not that special and we still don’t know the full spec for it. Meanwhile, despite bashing of the CR3 for its price and claimed stupidity, it will simultaneously constitute an entirely modern tank with all the required features, as well as being reliable and battle tested. This can be applied to other procurement programmes that make it look like the U.K. has small numbers. Our army needs to be light, to be mobile and to carry a punch at the same time. That’s not MOD spin, that’s reason. It’s pointless if it’s not expeditionary. That’s what the army needs to achieve. Not high numbers of heavy vehicles that are vulnerable to sinking while in transport, but easy to airlift and manoeuvre units that have firepower. That’s what our army is. Poland’s army has a different requirement; it is on the frontline. It doesn’t need speed. It doesn’t need nimbleness. It needs guns, armour and numbers. Our militaries are different, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Morning eclipse, I agree with just about every point you make. I do need to correct one thing, I am not bashing the Ch3 as it appears it will be a good MBT I do regret that we cannot field 250-300 of these though.
What you say about the use of the British Army is correct and a point that I have tried to make in other posts elsewhere it needs to be nimble and mobile, to be able to turn a flank. This is one of the reasons that I keep shouting about building three LHDs like HMAS Canberra each able to carry a battlegroup with its equipment. That is the ability to land up to 3000 men and kit over the beach. I agree totally, we are an Island nation and the words of the 1st Marquess of Halifax come to mind, “To the question, What shall we do to be saved in this world? There is no other answer but this, look to your moat”. These are words that I fully agree with, the defence of the sea lanes and airspace is the primary role of our defence forces. So the best help that the UK can give her European and NATO allies is a strong navy, able to defend the sea lanes and strong air force able to reinforce and a nimble army able to land anywhere of its choosing.
Interesting points that you both make. However we do need to take a lesson from what the Poles are doing, they have recognised that we have been complacent for much too long, no dispute there, and are going for a rapid and very visible solution. Can we do the same in this country? I’m not so sure until the mindset in Whitehall changes, and I am not sure that the Ukraine debacle is being taken seriously at a high level. The papers today are leading on the National Security Adviser’s briefing that we are potentially sleepwalking into a nuclear war, a good a thoughtful read, and also the Commons defence committee getting their views on paper.
I totally agree that we are unlikely to be capable of fighting a major war on the European mainland, but we have to be prepared to assist nato allies, so the point about expeditionary forces is well made. But can we get them to where they are needed? At present only in penny packets, and we we do not have the sealift, or indeed airlift to do the job properly. There was a good article on the Navy Lookout site a few weeks back about the RO RO ships used to move large bits of kit. As you might expect we had 6, a benign government got rid of 2 and the remaining 4 are now at the end of their lives with no replacement plan. We only keep one LPD operational at a time, and we cut the remaining RFA sealift by 25% some years ago. I would argue that the need for a robust appraisal of what we really need to support our supposed expeditionary expertise is long overdue, I should point out that the MRSS programme has been talked about for some years but still has not apparently crystallised into a full operational spec.
Another point to make is that if we are to get a fully tooled up expeditionary force somewhere it might be needed it will need escorting and I reckon that we simply don’t have the assets to do the job. Again see the Commons Defence Committee saying at the end of last year that we need a bigger Navy. Has any comment come from on high, even shooting the idea down, has it hell!
I appreciate that in the end it all comes down to money, and we can play fantasy fleets all day, but seeing the Poles aiming for 5% gdp for defence should give us pause for thought. It’s what it was during the Cold War, and we are back there in spades.
Completely agree with you, I think that a slightly larger number of MBTs is desirable not for deployment but for depth and so that we can sustain some losses. I have no idea how many of the original 400 something have been kept – I haven’t heard that they have been scrapped – but I’m guessing that the majority of those in storage have been cannibalised for spare parts and aren’t really ready for combat. I hope that that the 79 that aren’t upgraded are still kept in reserve and not scrapped. Then again, we are hearing more and more calls in the commons for attention to the military and getting rid of the tank cut would be a simple, relatively inexpensive way for the new PM to demonstrate a commitment to national security. It would only, likely, require an investment of a few hundred million pounds, which is very little in the grand scheme of things. Ideally, without playing fantasy fleets or assuming a Poland-style uplift in defence spending, the sort of things I would like to see are done are small investments that round out our capabilities instead of trying to invest in entirely new areas (like becoming a tank or artillery power, which is unnecessary in our position.) For example, cancelling the tank cuts will give our army a credible deployment while retaining mobility. Investing the £200m or however much is reasonably required in ISSGW in order to give our ships the weapons they need. If the Type 45 is given adequate anti surface capability, it will unquestionably be Europe’s most potent non-carrier ship, and though lacking the ASW firepower of the AB most likely on par with the Americans. Filling in gaps in what we have right now is what we need to do first, not go on what I think are slightly ridiculous shopping sprees that don’t look at the armed forces as a whole integrated system and pose the risk of making them imbalanced and possibly cumbersome.
Will it have all of the required features? Folks have commented on here that we are not buying sufficient Trophy systems for all of them? If that’s wrong then fair enough.
Having had a read on Janes and on Rafael’s own website, it seems like the number being purchased are only for preliminary trials and not the full number that will be in service.
We won’t be ‘Global Britain’ if we have a shrunken army such as you describe.
It can shoot down UAVs and drones and probably cruise missiles. Thats what they want it for. That and light ground attack role.
Why bother if you have Patriot and son of Land Ceptor?
Light ground attack would be better done with Apache?
Patriot has a very patchy record in shooting down incoming targets in the real world.
If you want to hit a land target quickly and get away quickly a low rate fighter is much better suited than apache.
For hitting ground targets at range something like the long range HIMARS or cheap GPS missiles would offer much the same utility. That is a lot of reloads you can procure for that sort of money…..
Blimey that will give them 1360 modern main battle tanks. With that spend and all the other equipment Poland’s going to become the premier European land power in NATO and give Russia conniptions.
Looks like Poland are planning to hand over their old Soviet stock to Ukraine, I suspect if the war drags on pretty much every piece of soviet equipment hanging around Europe will end up in Ukraine.
what will be interesting is if things like the Polish leopard 2s start finding their way to Ukraine.
ABG – Anything But German: totally self inflicted.
You cant blame the Polish. They asked Germany for Leopard 2A7 and were rebuffed. So turned to South Korea. A country with enviable industrisl base and the ability to support massive arnaments drive.
The K2 is a “Western tank” not as good as latest Abrahms or the Chally 3 but it doesnt need to be. It just needs to be better than T80/90 series. Which it most definitely is.
The Germans are looking distinctly self centred and short sighted in all this. Laughable military capability. Little to no support given to Ukraine. Low defence expenditure (until a much needed uplift) and a willingness to hide behind everyone else for its defence. Others would die to defend Germany so Germany can invest in itself.
Im hoping for a bitterly cold winter across Europe so the much needed lesson of truth and self reflection very much required can truly sink in.
Are you really sure the K2 ‘is not as good as the latest Chally 3’?
If I were a betting type I would put my chips on the K2 outperforming C3 in every important metric, especially the upgraded K2PL version. Don’t dismiss it just because it’s been designed and manufactured in a ‘non-western’ country. South Korea has some serious engineering and technological knowhow and you’d be foolish to assume the equipment it produces are inferior to the UK’s by default
Yes, I agree with Bell. The CR3 and Abrams are vastly superior tanks to K2, and the Koreans know that. They chose that. The CR3 and the K2 have massively different mission sets and requirements. What people seem to forget about Britain is that it is rather obviously an island. We have no requirement for an army, in all honesty. A properly equipped navy would do the job of defence. The army that we possess is for expeditionary warfare, and we have that capability to move it. Except the US, no one else does. We need a much smaller number of tanks that are individually much more capable since we need to transport them. 148 tanks, in my opinion, is a sufficient number for warfare for the U.K.; the problem comes in when casualties come in. Nevertheless, the U.K. has enviable industrial capability as well as the worlds second largest aerospace sector so the production of tanks during wartime would not be a difficulty. For SK, meanwhile, each tank does not have to be gold standard (unlike everything the MOD wants), but needs to be better than what NK and possibly China field, very simple to produce, and cheap enough to procure in large number. That is also what poland wants.
K2 is a very expensive tank.
Maybe in comparison to the Russian or Chinese tanks, but not in comparison to the Americans or Brits. An Abrams cost $6m in the 90s, when a CR2 cost about £4.5m. So that makes the CR2 about $7m. Adjusting for inflation and rise in costs of wages and materials, that puts them just under and just over $20m respectively. Today, Poland is paying $6bn for 250 Abrams putting the price of each at around $24m. The upgrade from CR2 to CR3 will alone cost over $10m per tank. A new K2 is $8.5m. A Leo 2A7, for reference, is about $16m.
The Norwegians are comparing the K2 directly with the Leo2A7 in trials. They will pick the winner at the end of the year and we shall see just how good the K2 is compared to the best NATO tanks.
Maybe it’d be better offered to Russia with a few ‘accidents’ engineered in !!!
Wow.. The Poles seam to be able to get much more bang for their buck than we can. Can we send the guys that negotiated the Ajax contract to Poland to learn a thing a or two?
Someone posted above that this is costing £10bn. Given the spend to date that would buy us a fleet of 40 Ajax vehicles that don’t work. How dare you suggest that we don’t spend our money sensibly
Now that’s sensible planning & buying that will make any aggressor think twice. Tragic we’ve been going the other direction for too long, giving Russia & the PRC loads of room for mischief, threatening freedom worldwide, undermining our institutions. Great to see Poland getting things done at rapid speed.
We should learn from their example, but Tories seem to regard defence as a fund to be profit mined rather than the guarantor of our futures.
This is the crash rearnaments drive the UK needs.
36-48 Eurofighter typhoon tranche 4 to see UK through to Tempest
A furrher 24 F35Bs in addition to 76 ordered
More apache Es
4 more type 26s taking order back up to 12 hulls
Mk41 vls for type 31s
NSM for interim anti ship capability
Lrasm for poseidon
Order a further 5 or 6 more poseidon
Accelerate SSNR build concurrent with dreadnought programme giving first 2 or 3 built to Australia whilst they start their build. Aiming to get first in class in operation no later than 2030
Then get SSN numbers in RN service upto at least 10 again.
Meteor missile. Large scale order.
Aster 30NT for a uk limited BMD capability
Land ceptor batteries large order
Himars for army large order
Scrap ajax junk and get cv90 or just more boxers
Upgrade all Chally 2s to 3 standard and fit trophy on all of them.
Put back 10-15k soldiers into the army.
All acheivable if at 3% GDP to defence ratio
Please send this list to the new UK PM! 😁
They all seems sensible. I’d go for a bigger increase in army/RM numbers as we need to train up for both a larger European land force as well as any contingents needed to support Taiwan or Australia, plus any other unforeseen events.
“All acheivable if at 3% GDP to defence ratio”.
As an accountant I’d like to see your workings and assumptions please.
Just kidding. I’d add Archer or similar to that list too. I’d wager we’d need more than 3% for all that if it was to happen within the next 10 years.
You mean the recce versions of CV90 and Boxer presumably to replace Ajax.
This has to make Poland one of the most powerful land forces on Earth now right? 1,000 top shelf MBTs is nothing to scoff at
Well done Poland! And thank you!
This is nothing. We’ve spent £3.4bn on 14 Ajax vehicles and are investing £250m in a national ship which will outclass any vessel in the world in terms of cocktail party technology.
It’s a training aircraft that can be used to support the rest of the fleet.
What Poland needs is several hundred NATO aircraft flying from the east knock the barbarians to hell while Polish armour does the same on the ground.
This version is not a training aircraft, this is a combat aircraft.
Polish training aircraft is the M-346
Meanwhile, the UK government promises jam for tomorrow with an increase of 1/2% of GDP by 2030, only 8 years away.
Other governments see what’s coming. The UK will get caught out again. After it’s over, we will be seen as an irrelevant little island off the coast of Europe that was once a world power.
Not asking for 5% of GDP, 1% extra spent wisely today, will protect our nation & those who followed my footsteps in the forces. Deaths in the numbers of WWI are not acceptable and yet, being unprepared, underfunded and under-equipped, this will be the end result. The politicians may not be directly affected, but their kith and kin will be able to dodge the fallout of our stupid policy.
Very interesting development by Poland and a bit of real lateral thinking. Poland cannot produce enough home grown equipment nor buy from Eu or US within a realistic timescale. So assesses it’s needs and decides to buy from Korea as they can supply the kit at a great price, within timescales and it is designed to be compatible with US kit. Why has Korea managed to pull off this deal ? Because they also have a lunatic living next door with a massive land army consisting of old Soviet copies and rather than cutting defence has spent their time developing their ability to deal with said Lunatic.
As for their choices regarding the FA-50 it makes perfect sense, until Poland can secure supplies of more F16’s and F35’s they need an aircraft that is easily compatible to train extra Pilots. Just remember that aircraft are easier to acquire than Pilots. As for the FA-50 as a combat plane just remember that MBDA has already offered an upgrade package to FA-50 users so they can use ASRAAM and Meteor BVRL missiles. It has an AESA radar already so it can act as a pretty useful defensive CAP behind the F16 / F35.
Poland has always been Army focussed and anyone who knows about their military history knows the Poles are motivated and will fight to defend their country with “The Fury of Gods own vengeance”.
As for Germany what are they actually doing ? Promise to spend more, but anyone want to bet that disappears after the Ukraine war finishes. If they do then throw them out of NATO.
as for us in U.K we have never really been comfortable as a European land power and I don’t think we should be wasting resources on trying to be one.
The U.K and Europe cannot feed themselves and depend on imports for energy so I believe we do the following.
Spend 3% of GDP on defence, boost the Navy and the airforce and train / equip our army to help defend the flanks.
My shopping list :-
Short term.
Refit HMS Montrose and Monmouth and get them back into service.
Buy and fit 8 NSM to T23 and T45.
Max out the Astor missiles on T45 and buy the ABM versions.
Upgrade the T45 radar and sonar and add some AS torpedo tubes.
Ask Leonardo if they can refit 10 of the Merlin HM1 that were not upgraded to HM2 and get them into service.
Pole Japan, Italy to see if they are interested in new build Merlins.
Investigate and cost the building of a proper modern integrated SAM system.
Land based Sampson / Astor / CAMM comes to mind.
1 extra Astute but followed by a developed version that can use the US systems the Australians use.
Reassess the plan to alter the QE’s as CATOBAR and see if it can be done for a realistic price and don’t be afraid to ask for foreign quotes.
48 More F35B’s or C’s depending on previous.
4 extra T26, 3 extra T31 and buy into the Belgium / Netherlands MCM mother ships build.
Renew the Amphibious lift capacity, 2 LPH, 2 LSD and 4 new Bay class.
5 extra P8, 2 extra Wedgetails, 48 Typhoon GR4 and look at fitting some of the existing 2 seaters with SEAD/DEAD capability. Read the RUSI article about this.
96 new Build Merlins (HM and HC versions).
24 Extra Wildcats.
Very quietly investigate a route to equip us with some Tactical Nuclear Weapons.
As for the Army it needs to sort Boxer out or buy CV90.
Get out of the heavy armour business and go for light weight, deployable forces that are AGW heavy with modern SPG and SPR and adequate AD.
You may all now laugh.
That is quite a shopping list. I’d respectfully disagree about catobars and the F35C. I think we have the right aircraft for us in order to provide flexibility and availability. Cats and traps would require continually recertification of our pilots for instance.
All the Merlins that were not upgraded have been stripped for parts.
Refitting already old T23s when T31 is so close may not be the best use of money. I’d say spend it on mk41 and/or NSM.
Why not buy new helos for the army and transfer all their wildcats to the AAC.
We will never have tactical nukes. To my mind there is no such thing, you either going nuclear or you don’t. It undermines the MAD principle in my view. After all, who on the other side decides whether a nuke was small enough to be tactical or not, then what their response should be.
The believe the 10 or 11 Merlin that remained at HM1 standard were stripped for spares.
Agree with UK GBAD system.
Never mind ASM on ships, get them on fast jets.
Amphibs will be replaced by MRSS in due course.
96 New Merlins! We only have 50 in 5 squadrons, we’ll need some personnel uplift to operate 96!
Boxer is fine, just expensive, but you meant Ajax.
I agree with your last para on overall direction of the army, it about the RA, ISTAR, and PGW for me. But I believe in maintaining some heavy armour capability.
Extra P8 is achievable and 6 serials have been reserved for further P8 buys.
Agree with Wegetail though at those prices we have other pinch areas and you have NATO and USAF AWACS.
I am aware of the status of the HM1 Merlins 12 were never updated and have been cannibalised. But they exist hence my words ask and if.
The simple truth is we only have 30 Merlin HM2 and that just isn’t enough for our existing requirements never mind any uplift. CSG 21 on QE used 7 of those including 3 with Crowsnest. That left only 23 and some of those would be in maintainence or used for training. So I would ask the questions, if, how long and how much.
As for NSM not being fitted to surface ships, that is just short sighted. Yes put some on fast jets, but there aren’t that many of them and surface ships are quite often out of their range. So fit them on rather than “fitted for but not with” to every ship you can.
The RAF justified the cancelling of the CVF in the 60’s by arguing that they could provide air cover for the RN so they didn’t need carriers.
I memory serves me they moved Gan and just adjusted the figures relating to range to suit their case.
As for the CATOBAR I would revisit it as it opens up a whole lot of possibilities such as cross decking with US and those other ones who lost to Germany last night.
If it is still too expensive then fine just stay as we are, but remember these ships have a 50 year life so the need may arise again.
As for waiting for T31 rather than refitting Monmouth, we may need ships now not in 4 to 5 years. And she is on,y being taken out of service 5 years early to save some cash.
Yes, my understanding was their cannibalisation was such that they barely exist so are not convertible!
Yes 30 Merlin is too few. So another dozen or so to replace those not updated, not 96 which is not feasible.
I agree with RobW regards carrier qualification, we’d end up with less planes than now.
Retiring Monmouth I understand increases the availability of the others.
What condition she’s in I’ve no idea, GB will know and has worked on her.
Inter service politics is long-standing.
The Army is currently blaming the carriers for its own procurement shambles, yet the army is getting the biggest share of the new money.
I’m not so convinced the ASM issue is short sighted given how the RN operates and how one would target an enemy with them in escorts. Why risk your vessel when you can risk 1 or 2 jets who have the range to launch an OTH attack.
There aren’t that many of them? There’s a darn sight more than escorts! And why would the RN risk it’s escorts sailing off Murmansk to engage Russian ships therefore endangering themselves in the process.
There was going to be an increment 2 version of the US Presidential US101. It would have had 3000hp engines, a longer tailboom, more advanced blade tips, etc. Sadly it got cancelled. A new UK PM could back UK industry by ordering a demonstrator to that standard. Perhaps the new T901 engines. Perhaps a decade from now, the UK replaces old Merlins with new improved Merlins.
I still think the Treasury should take back the cost of the nuclear deterrent as it had for decades until Osborne was controlling the purse strings. This alone would free up ~£5Bn a year – every year – for the MoD. Just think how much that would do for new equipment, manning, etc.
The fact the MoD is now spends 13% of its budget just on the nuclear deterrent is something that gets overlooked so often but has a huge impact on available funding.
Could the FA-50 be a trainer?
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/eurofighter-courts-poland-for-typhoon-sale/
JayR I think that’s a very one dimensional way of thinking about it. Modern warfare works as a team effort in a networked battlefield. The FA-50 was built and designed with Lockheed’s help and has Link 16, so it can work with F-16s and F-35s in a interlinked way.
Targets found and identified by F-16s and F-35s, but considered too low value to risk those high value aircraft, can vector FA-50s to do the job since the FA-50 can use Maverick missiles, JDAMs and other NATO compliant laser guided bombs. Additionally, the FA-50 can do more routine air missions such as air patrol, air policing, infantry supporting ground attack, etc. which frees up your F-16s and F-35s to do more higher value missions such as tangling with Russian air superiority fighters and deep interdiction raids against more strategic high value targets.
An FA-50 cannot go head-to-head with a Su-27 or Su-30, but it can put pressure on Russian Su-25s and helicopters in air patrol missions. If the Russians need to escort their ground attack air assets with air superiority fighters, then it just dilutes offensive Russian air capabilities and takes Russian air superiority assets away from the defense of critical strategic assets like supply dumps and C3 outposts. If a F-16 or F-35 sees Russian Su-25s or helicopters in their radar, then they can use Link 16 to transfer targeting information to the FA-50s and vector them to take care of that job, etc. And if the Russians move air superiority assets to defend their air to ground attack assets, then the F-16s and F-35s can move against less defended Russian battlefield strategic assets.
Lastly, as others have mentioned here but the FA-50 can also provide more efficient training of pilots for the F-16 and F-35, again because the avionics and aeronautical (especially the F-16) characteristics mimics other Lockheed built aircraft.
It’s best to think of modern warfare three dimensionally, like a chess board. The F-35s are the queens, the F-16s are the knights and the FA-50 are either rooks or bishops. Each move causes a counter move by the opponent which opens up weaknesses for your other pieces to exploit, etc.
Good to see Poland take defence seriously ,talking about going from 3GDP -5 .Wake up HMG 🙄
I take it that Korea produces some pretty good kit then?
Like Hyundai Genesis vs. BMW. 90% the performance but only 70% of the price.
Check out the top 5 most reliable car manufacturers of the last 20 years
They’re all Japanese and South Korean
The Polish are yet again putting their money where there mouth is! Impressive numbers and modern kit! Poland is the tip of the NATO spear and take it seriously!
They are going to have to do a lot of recruitment and training to man this lot thought. not sure what pay in the Polish army is like compared to the general jobs market there?
So why the South Korea splurge? are they all on special offer? BOGOF ?
I think the numbers here that are wowing everyone may point to a potential issue. Are the Poles beginning to realise that for the future in Europe the US may not be so willing to defend us as it once was? The joke doing the rounds is that in future the Polish army alone would be capable of dealing with Russian conventional forces in East Europe. I think that’s exactly what they are gearing up to do should the need arise and we may all yet owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
The UK really has to get its finger out
Who knows will there ever wake up one⏰
They still buying Brimstone?