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.

Callum runs the Open Source Defence (@OSDefence) twitter account providing regular OSINT-based updates on global defence news, in particular on the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. He has a keen interest in aviation and defence and has engaged in the OSINT community for a number of years.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
184 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
14 days ago

OT. RN has a new vessel. XV Patrick Blackett.

User by Navy X.

John Hartley
John Hartley
14 days ago

I thought the Poles might have bought South Korean surface to surface ballistic missiles.

Ed
Ed
13 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Might be somewhere in phase II or phase III. Get the feeling this initial purchase is just the beginning.

John Hartley
John Hartley
12 days ago
Reply to  Ed

Well the latest Hyunmoo-4 is reported to chuck a 1000kg warhead 800km. A useful deterrent to Russia, I would have thought.

farouk
farouk
14 days ago

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.””

Last edited 14 days ago by farouk
Stu
Stu
14 days ago
Reply to  farouk

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)?

farouk
farouk
14 days ago
Reply to  Stu

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… Read more »

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
14 days ago
Reply to  farouk

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.

farouk
farouk
14 days ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

DanielM wrote: 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. 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… Read more »

Peter Weg
Peter Weg
13 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Apparently the Leopards will retire in 2030

Ed
Ed
13 days ago
Reply to  Peter Weg

Reserve, training or storage.

Jay
Jay
13 days ago
Reply to  farouk

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.

Callum
Callum
12 days ago
Reply to  Jay

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
14 days ago
Reply to  Stu

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… Read more »

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
14 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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.

farouk
farouk
14 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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.

Stu
Stu
13 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

‘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,… Read more »

Martin
Martin
14 days ago

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… Read more »

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
14 days ago
Reply to  Martin

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… Read more »

farouk
farouk
14 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

And that post gets a 👍 from me.

David Steeper
David Steeper
14 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

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.

Last edited 14 days ago by David Steeper
FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
14 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

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… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
14 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

You make perfect sense but it will never happen sadly.

Graham
Graham
13 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

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.

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
13 days ago
Reply to  Graham

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… Read more »

Ianbuk
Ianbuk
13 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

“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… Read more »

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
13 days ago
Reply to  Ianbuk

Absolute spot on brother 👍

Stu
Stu
13 days ago
Reply to  Ianbuk

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.

Andrew D
Andrew D
13 days ago
Reply to  Ianbuk

👍 well said

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
12 days ago
Reply to  Ianbuk

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
12 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

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… Read more »

Martin
Martin
14 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

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… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
14 days ago
Reply to  Martin

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.

Martin
Martin
14 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Think I’m hopeful rather than optimistic 😀

Graham
Graham
12 days ago
Reply to  Martin

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… Read more »

Graham
Graham
12 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

David, what did Heapey say about the Navy?

David Steeper
David Steeper
12 days ago
Reply to  Graham

No prob. Minister calls for Royal Navy warships to be more ‘lethal’
May 5, 2022
UKDJ

Last edited 12 days ago by David Steeper
Andrew
Andrew
14 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

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.

Matt
Matt
13 days ago
Reply to  Andrew

Except they have already started counting Ukranian aid as Defence Budget.

To be a pessimist.

Fedex
Fedex
13 days ago
Reply to  Andrew

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.

Graham
Graham
12 days ago
Reply to  Andrew

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.

Graham
Graham
13 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

All good points, but please don’t forget that our army actually gets used in warfighting year on year.

Steve
Steve
14 days ago
Reply to  Martin

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.

Martin
Martin
13 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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… Read more »

Steve
Steve
13 days ago
Reply to  Martin

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… Read more »

Martin
Martin
13 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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… Read more »

Fedex
Fedex
13 days ago
Reply to  Martin

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.

Graham
Graham
12 days ago
Reply to  Steve

True, our army actually does warfighting at scale consistently over time, as well as all the other stuff.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
14 days ago
Reply to  Martin

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.

Martin
Martin
13 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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.

Steve
Steve
13 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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… Read more »

geoff.Roach
geoff.Roach
13 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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… Read more »

Steve
Steve
13 days ago
Reply to  geoff.Roach

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.

Steve
Steve
13 days ago
Reply to  geoff.Roach

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.

geoff.Roach
geoff.Roach
13 days ago
Reply to  Steve

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.

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
13 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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.

geoff.Roach
geoff.Roach
13 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

Bang on my friend. Will it ever change? Liz Truss maybe? Fingers crossed.🙄

Ross
Ross
13 days ago
Reply to  Martin

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).

Martin
Martin
13 days ago
Reply to  Ross

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… Read more »

Nathan
Nathan
14 days ago

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
14 days ago
Reply to  Nathan

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… Read more »

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
14 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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.

Sean
Sean
13 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

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.… Read more »

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
13 days ago
Reply to  Sean

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,… Read more »

Graham
Graham
12 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Is Russia capable of taking on Poland after their Ukrainian operation?

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
12 days ago
Reply to  Graham

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

Subcarpathian
Subcarpathian
12 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Poland is buing K10, MoD say that on the last Conference

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
14 days ago
Reply to  Nathan

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*****

Esteban
Esteban
13 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

And yet everyone else in Europe hides behind them…

Airborne
Airborne
13 days ago
Reply to  Esteban

Hides behind what? The chips on your weak shoulders?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
11 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

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.

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
11 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
10 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

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.

Chrisby33
Chrisby33
14 days ago

That’s an insane amount of varied kit you train on, use and maintain!

jason
jason
14 days ago

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.

RobW
RobW
14 days ago
Reply to  jason

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.

Esteban
Esteban
13 days ago
Reply to  RobW

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

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
13 days ago
Reply to  Esteban

This doesn’t even deserve a response. It’s back to French internet for you

SteveP
SteveP
13 days ago

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.

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
13 days ago
Reply to  SteveP

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

SteveP
SteveP
13 days ago

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.

DMJ
DMJ
13 days ago
Reply to  SteveP

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

Airborne
Airborne
13 days ago
Reply to  SteveP

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!

DMJ
DMJ
13 days ago

Agree, do not feed the troll

RobW
RobW
13 days ago
Reply to  DMJ

Oh! I just did. Oh well, he never replies anyway.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
13 days ago
Reply to  Esteban

“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… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
13 days ago

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 😂😂😂👍

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
12 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Lol morning mate! 😆 half wits, lol

geoff.Roach
geoff.Roach
12 days ago

Does Poland have fish and chips, does Poland have…. You’ve quite made my morning my friend.😂

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
12 days ago
Reply to  geoff.Roach

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.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
12 days ago

The other thing I should have said, of course, is that you were right in everything😎 you said.

RobW
RobW
13 days ago
Reply to  Esteban

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… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
13 days ago
Reply to  Esteban

And the

Airborne
Airborne
13 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Sad chip on your shoulder

Airborne
Airborne
13 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Is mind numbing to us!

Airborne
Airborne
13 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

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!

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
14 days ago

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?

Expat
Expat
14 days ago

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.

Andy P
Andy P
14 days ago

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.

Peter Weg
Peter Weg
13 days ago
Reply to  Andy P

Majority of Poles were born under Russian occupation and a lot lived in exile because of it.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
14 days ago

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… Read more »

Deep32
Deep32
14 days ago

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!

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
14 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

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.

Sean
Sean
13 days ago

Gold standard keeps our servicemen alive – not a single Chally has been lost to enemy fire.

Deep32
Deep32
13 days ago
Reply to  Sean

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!

Sean
Sean
13 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
11 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

Hopefully our (soon-to-be) 138 tanks will last more than a few days in the next major conflict.

Peter wee
Peter wee
12 days ago
Reply to  Sean

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?

Deep32
Deep32
13 days ago

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… Read more »

Paul T
Paul T
13 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

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.

Deep32
Deep32
13 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

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… Read more »

Jim
Jim
14 days ago

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.

Ed
Ed
13 days ago
Reply to  Jim

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.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
14 days ago

Go Poland. After what Russia and Germany have done to them in recent history.

Impressive army.

Ron
Ron
14 days ago

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.

eclipse
eclipse
14 days ago
Reply to  Ron

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… Read more »

Ron
Ron
13 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

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… Read more »

Nick C
Nick C
13 days ago
Reply to  Ron

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,… Read more »

eclipse
eclipse
13 days ago
Reply to  Ron

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… Read more »

SteveP
SteveP
13 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

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.

eclipse
eclipse
13 days ago
Reply to  SteveP

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.

Graham
Graham
12 days ago
Reply to  Ron

We won’t be ‘Global Britain’ if we have a shrunken army such as you describe.

Jonathan
Jonathan
14 days ago

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan
14 days ago

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.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
14 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

ABG – Anything But German: totally self inflicted.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
13 days ago

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)… Read more »

Rodriguez
Rodriguez
13 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

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

eclipse
eclipse
12 days ago
Reply to  Rodriguez

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… Read more »

Peter wee
Peter wee
12 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

K2 is a very expensive tank.

eclipse
eclipse
7 days ago
Reply to  Peter wee

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… Read more »

Ed
Ed
13 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

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.

Jim
Jim
14 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Maybe it’d be better offered to Russia with a few ‘accidents’ engineered in !!!

grumpy old steve
grumpy old steve
14 days ago

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?

SteveP
SteveP
13 days ago

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

Frank62
Frank62
14 days ago

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.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
13 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

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… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
13 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Please send this list to the new UK PM! 😁

Frank62
Frank62
13 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

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.

RobW
RobW
13 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

“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.

Graham
Graham
12 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

You mean the recce versions of CV90 and Boxer presumably to replace Ajax.

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
13 days ago

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

Paul.P
Paul.P
13 days ago

Well done Poland! And thank you!

SteveP
SteveP
13 days ago

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.

Ianbuk
Ianbuk
13 days ago

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… Read more »

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
13 days ago

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… Read more »

RobW
RobW
13 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
13 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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… Read more »

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
13 days ago

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… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
13 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

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… Read more »

John Hartley
John Hartley
10 days ago

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.

David
David
13 days ago

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.

Andrew D
Andrew D
13 days ago

Good to see Poland take defence seriously ,talking about going from 3GDP -5 .Wake up HMG 🙄

Tom Keane
Tom Keane
13 days ago

I take it that Korea produces some pretty good kit then?

Ed
Ed
13 days ago
Reply to  Tom Keane

Like Hyundai Genesis vs. BMW. 90% the performance but only 70% of the price.

Nathan Mooney
Nathan Mooney
9 days ago
Reply to  Ed

Check out the top 5 most reliable car manufacturers of the last 20 years
They’re all Japanese and South Korean

Airborne
Airborne
13 days ago

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!

Simon
Simon
11 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

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?

taffybadger
taffybadger
13 days ago

So why the South Korea splurge? are they all on special offer? BOGOF ?

Jim
Jim
13 days ago

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.

Steven Kirkland
Steven Kirkland
12 days ago

The UK really has to get its finger out

Andrew D
Andrew D
12 days ago

Who knows will there ever wake up one⏰

Tomartyr
Tomartyr
11 days ago

They still buying Brimstone?