The First Sea Lord has said that the Royal Navy is aiming to become “a global leader in hypersonic weapons”.

The following is an excerpt from a speech given by First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Ben Key in Rosyth, February 10th 2020.

“At the steel cutting for HMS Venturer back in September, on this site, the Defence Secretary said it was not so much a milestone in the life of a single ship, as a glimpse of the future of our Fleet. It’s a future where we are setting ourselves a challenge to become a global leader in hypersonic weapons. A future where we’ll become more adaptive in how we use our platforms, high end war fighting, command and control, floating embassies for the United Nations. Highly lethal, highly reassuring and highly adaptable.

It’s where we will blend crewed and uncrewed systems, operating both F35 and drones from the same flight deck. A future where the Royal Marine Commandos will operate from our Multi role support ships, and ashore in small groups delivering training and support to teams afloat in the Littoral Response Groups and also delivering in a different way special support to maritime operations. And it’s a future where we will regain and retain operational advantage in the underwater domain.

So I have a call to arms for you in industry. I want you to feel as invested in this as we are, not because of your share price. Not because of the wonderful manufacturing facilities that allows you to create, but because you recognise you are integral to the success of a Global, Modern, and Ready Royal Navy.”

For more on Royal Navy plans to acquire new missiles, I recommend you check out the following article from defence analyst ‘NavyLookout, a great source of in-depth information.

Royal Navy rows back on plans to acquire new anti-ship missiles before 2030s

What are hypersonic missiles?

According to this description, hypersonic weapons are normally defined as fast, low-flying, and highly manoeuvrable weapons designed to be too quick and agile for traditional missile defence systems to detect in time.

“Unlike ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons don’t follow a predetermined, arched trajectory and can manoeuvre on the way to their destination, according to the Congressional Research Service. The term ‘hypersonic’ describes any speed faster than five times that of sound, which is roughly 760 miles (1,220 kilometres) per hour at sea level, meaning these weapons can travel at least 3,800 miles per hour.

At hypersonic speeds, the air molecules around the flight vehicle start to change, breaking apart or gaining a charge in a process called ionization. This subjects the hypersonic vehicle to “tremendous” stresses as it pushes through the atmosphere, according to a 2018 U.S. Army paper.”

China, the U.S., and Russia have some level of hypersonic capability and several other countries are investigating the technology, including India, Japan, Australia, France, Germany and North Korea.

George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
309 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago

This is obviously the next big thing in missile development let’s hope we can keep ahead of the curve?

Jack
Jack
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

Keep ahead of the curve ? We already behind it.

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

But the CC intends to get ahead of the curve and that is what matters.

Tim
Tim
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

To be fair we already have missiles that fly and 4 times the speed of sound to pump it up to 5x shouldn’t be much of a problem

Pete
Pete
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

Exactly. Not ‘leading’…..laggards trying to catch up.

Tams
Tams
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

Other than some claims from China and Russia, do we actually know if their hypersonic missiles are really near operational capability?

It’s no reason to be complacent, which we have somewhat been. But they are being taken seriously now, which is the most important thing.

JustMe
JustMe
1 month ago
Reply to  Tams

The much vaunted Chinese one missed a stationary target by 24 miles

Mac
Mac
1 month ago

If only the budgets matched the talk and ambition.

Trying to Do this stuff on the cheap is a waste of time.

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Mac

There is a substantial uplift in the budget for R&D and for the FC/ASW allocated. I’m not sure where this comment is coming from.

Bill
Bill
1 month ago
Reply to  Mac

I agree. 24 escorts by 2030? A lot of hot air coming from the FSL.

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Bill

Not if Russia invades Ukraine. NATO budgets will increase substantially on the back of an invasion. The UK will have to weigh up social needs against priority military programmes, in other words, we will be back to ‘Cold War’ priorities. Europe can no longer take a laid-back approach to defence and endless dependability on US support. At some stage, ‘Trumpisum attitudes’ will gain popularity against endless public spending on foreign defence regardless of strategic necessity. Global Britain is not going to die if Boris leaves office, that objective has wide support from many powerful organisations. 24 escorts are feasible if… Read more »

Stc
Stc
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

I’m no Trump supporter, but arguably from our point of view Biden is no better leaving Afghanistan without consulting allies was sticking two fingers up to us. That’s emboldened Putin’s confidence in the Ukraine and Bidens decision as probably indirectly led to it.

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Stc

The trouble with Biden is he’s too old for the job and is bored stiff with the peripherals of office, hence letting off wind in front of royalty and making ill judged comments under his breath. In truth, he’s a political plughole until the next presidential campaign. In the meantime, Putin and China will make hay, you can bet on that. As for Afghanistan, he was totally miss informed and ill-advised and his actions were purely based on blind panic.

Tams
Tams
1 month ago
Reply to  Stc

That wasn’t really Biden’s fault. Trump was the one who brokered that terrible deal with the Taliban with an even sooner, completely unrealistic deadline. And Trump then did next to nothing to start preparing to try and meet it.

Nathan
Nathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Tams

Don’t blame trump, that’s shifty propaganda from the anti trump establishment to try and spin their dogs dinner pull out. Trump shouldn’t have brokered any deal but it was what he ran on, but what he did broker had conditions that needed to be complied with. It was Biden or his handlers who decided not to hold the Taliban to these. Trump moved the embassay…and the world didn’t end. He killed Soleimanni and nothing happened. The Taliban knew what they were getting with Trump, they saw his track record and knew he would hold them to account. Biden could’ve pressed… Read more »

Rob N
Rob N
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan

Perhaps we should blame the Afghan people for not Standing up to the minority Taliban. It is their country but they did not fight for their country.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

Whoever replaces Johnson from whichever party ‘Global Britain’ will be dead.

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

No David….NO!

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

I’m with you 100% don’t worry but the silence from other politicos on the subject has been deafening. Hopefully i’m being pessimistic but …

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

In my opinion Global Britain is an external diversion. What is really happening is internal; the issue that our constitution is past its use by date. We are becoming ungovernable. Hence the trends towards authoritarianism. When Elizabeth II passes we will see major changes to the Union between England and Scotland, to the constitutional status of NI, a slimming down of the Lords which may finally become an elected chamber; the repeal of the Act of Succession and rebuilding of constructive relations with the EU. The NI Protocol is the driver. Voters will not accept the economic consequences of triggering… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Paul.P
Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Hmm. Having lived in countries where there’s 100s of thousands ok UK citizens working I don’t see how global Britain is a diversion. British people are global many of us have lived and worked outside the UK and millions more will do in the future. All Boris has done is give it a label but global Britain was there before we left the EU and predated Boris.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Expats are the record of events: the living memory of empire. The UK is a nation coming to terms with its past, warts and all; like a person in bereavement. Psychologists tell us there are several stages to bereavement; guilt, anger, depression, forgiveness followed hopefully by acceptance, personal growth and new beginnings. People often try for new beginnings before they have become reconciled to the past. Then you have to pause and take a step back before going on. We joined the EU before we had finished grieving for the loss of empire. Wokeness is a negative response to mistakes… Read more »

Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I think you over complicate things. I was an ecoat because my skills are in demand by foreign companies. That’s what global Britain is about providing goods and services that are in demand. I personally have zero guilt about Britain’s past. I wasn’t a live at the time and cannot be held to account for something I had no part in. Britain’s just one of the long list of countries that’s had empires, Mongolia, Turkey Italy etc have all had a go at it, appears to me for centuries it was just something people aspired to do.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

It’s always possible I am overcomplicating the situation. The UK will never again be the workshop of the world. But it might aspire thanks to its language and education system to be a leading provider of technical services and consulting. What is nonsense is the notion that trade deals with the likes of Australia can compensate for the trade drop off with the EU. It takes a lot of legs of lamb to pay for a submarine.

Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

For what it’s worth I would have preferred to stay.in Europe but that’s now history, we now need to make the best of what we have and play to our strengths.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Yeh. As they say, we are where we are. Or as my grandmother would have said, you’ve made your bed so you have to lie in it ..

maurice10
maurice10
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

An interesting observation Paul.P, however, the UK is now freer than EU members to trade where it wishes, hence the ‘Global.’

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

To be honest Maurice I’ve never really understood the ‘freedom to trade’ argument. Being EU members didn’t and doesn’t stop France and Germany trouncing us in exports to India, China and the ME. It’s simple; you have to make good quality things that the emerging economies want to buy: Rafales, Mercedes, frigates, submarines, Airbuses. We have been using the EU as an excuse.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I don’t think so David, I think that no matter what the U.K. is so globally entrenched any Leader who is not an incompetent loon will keep that program going.

to be honest Britain has Always been global, it was one of our major areas of stress being part of the EU. We alway had far wider geopolitical agendas that did not sit will in the EU.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Your less cynical about politicians than I am. In Labour there are 3 main clues as to how they view this. First they’re overwhelmingly remain and however ridiculous it is for so many reasons they hope we’ll rejoin. For that reason they’ll prioritise europe. Second pacifism or anti-west sentiment is a huge part of their party see AUKUS. Third is common to both parties ‘Global Britain’ is a Johnson idea not theirs so they have no reason to support it. The Cons would do the same if Labour came up with it. For the Conservatives it depends on the circumstances… Read more »

Pete
Pete
1 month ago
Reply to  maurice10

I’m not so sure the budgets with recent increases are far off where they need to be. The issue for me is more about avoiding the squandering of multi billions on projects that go nowhere. Effectiveness and Value is they key.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Bill

And BJs boastful comment about the UK becoming “foremost naval power” in Europe. A bit less talk and a bit more action please! Stay modest and get on with it and sooner than later! More missiles on ships, more helicopters, and more subs.

James
James
1 month ago
Reply to  Bill

24 escorts lol That’s way too low to be taken serious! Even during Blair peace time years we had more escorts . The goal for 2030 should be 30 escorts armed to the teeth! And for each carrier 30 functional jets plus drones. We must build mini electronic attack subs and have a fleet of 20 subs in total including trident . This is a realistic tangible goal if if the corrupt politicians of Westminster are taking defence seriously, it requires just 2.7 percent of GDP budget

Farouk
Farouk
1 month ago

Is it April First already?
Not only can we not afford to upgrade our Harpoon missiles, we can’t afford to purchase something to cover the gap until the ethereal Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon Comes on line and let’s be honest at the next election the Tories will be gone and whoever gets in
labour
liberals
Greens
will cut all military funding as they have all said they will do, it will make the cuts Labour carried out during the 60s as child’s play.

Last edited 1 month ago by Farouk
PRJ
PRJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

Points well made. The 1SL is sadly having to pick up the pieces his predecessors have left. What are the immediate options till the ethereal weapon turns up? Do the RN/ MOD have the moral strength to admit they’ve been negligent and buy some equipment based on UOR.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  PRJ

The University of Reading is a centre of excellence for weaponry? Who woulda thought it. Or is it Urgent Operational Requirement is that the right guess for those of us not very Acronym savvy.

PRJ
PRJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Sorry, yes Urgent Operational Requirement.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

You forgot the chuckle brothers. The SNP.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Aah I know that one 🥳

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

👍

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Can we just try forget them please they give me indigestion.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

😀

Tommo
Tommo
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Alas its now Chuckle Brother To me to me to me David

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Tommo

😭😭

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

The decision on ISSGM seems to be driven by capability not budget. Radakin said the issue was that ISSGM was not very capable, we need hypersonics and the budget might be better spent fitting Mk 41 VLS to Type 31s.

Mark
Mark
1 month ago

Just had a news post pop up in my Google feed refering to the vls load out on the new Aussie Hunter class. As you can see Type 31 is stated as having 24 vls……
Does this journalist know something we don’t?
https://www.navalreview.ca/2021/11/some-comments-on-csc-armaments-aussie-comparisons/

Screenshot_20220212-112637.png
David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark

Oh my god reading that was deja vu. More missiles or bigger missiles or more bigger missiles. Why not buy American their kit looks so much cooler on my fav computer game. Not a single mention of the fact the 26 will be by a vast margin the finest ASW ship on the planet. Not because of how many VLS but how quiet it will be and in comparison the Burkes sound like a wheelbarrow full of nuts and bolts being pulled along a cobbled street.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Hi David,

Good point. Whilst VLS is an important issue the T26b is primarily an ASW platform and hence needs to be quiet.

The extra equipment required to achieve the kind of acoustic signature that we are talking about comes with a weight and financial cost, but is very well worth it given the increased capability and numbers of Russian and Chinese submarines.

Cheers CR

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Thanks CR. It seems lazy to constantly judge a warship on the size and number of it’s guns and missiles. Warfare at the top tier on land and particularly sea or air is vastly more complex than that. If guns and missiles alone decided warfare then the Soviet Navy was the most powerfull fleet on earth for most of the cold war. When in reality in any conflict they were floating coffins.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

The Aussies have moved forward with the Hunter spec, and it looks like it’ll be 25% heavier than the Type 26. That’s cramming everything they can think of in. That’s what I call extra weight and financial cost. Making the T26 as quiet as possible, priceless.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon
ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

“Making the T26 as quiet as possible, priceless.” Especially in the Arctic / North Atlantic.

Cheers CR

Jacko
Jacko
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Most of that extra weight is down to their choice of radar I read somewhere on here I believe.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Excellent at ASW yes. But enemies have a very unsporting habit of attacking the blind-sides we’re negligent enough to give them on a plate. Still greatly lacking when faced with an enemy escort surface attack. They get a free gift of shooting all their AShMs off at us before we’re ever close enough to engage with the main gun or close ranged light/v light missiles via a Wildcat heli. Apart from the fact ASW escorts are far more likely to operate Merlin ASW helis with zero surface missile capability & even a Wildcat would be hard pressed to get close… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

On current plans the in service dates for 26 and LRASM are 2027 and 2030. Concurrent would be better but 3 years is not too bad.

eclipse
eclipse
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I’m guessing you meant FCASW?

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  eclipse

No I teleported into the future and saw LM would win the contract ! Sorry yeah gotta love acronyms.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Planning to reduce a sixteen-ship capability to zero for at least three years, then building it back to a one-ship capability is pretty bad. In 2027 only HMS Glasgow is expected to have the ability to host FC/ASW (the Sylvers on Type 45s are expected to be too small, and they should be full of Asters anyway). Glasgow can’t be always available. The ability to continuously field at least one surface ship with FC/ASW should come around 2030 when we plan to have three operational Type 26s. That’s a seven or eight year gap. We plan to have equipped half… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Yes but it’s been a very long time since we’ve had all 23’s deployed with Harpoon. No argument there’s a capability gap and very far from ideal but we are where we are. The 1SL has taken the decision to spend his budget on the future ideal. That’s his call and agree or disagree you have to respect him for it.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

The money that had been earmarked in the budget for the interim missiles isn’t going to the FC/ASW.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Where has it been allocated ?

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

I think with the low numbers we have the T26s are going to be spending all their time escorting carriers or amphibious groups. If they are with a carrier no surface threat will get close and thy need to be entirely focused on ASW work. I personally would like to see the T31s get some top end ASuW capability so they could be off hunting surface contacts while the T26s get on with what they will be brilliant at.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Too late for the T31s. Top end ASW capability demands all the machinery is installed on noise reducing mountings which needs to be designed in from the start of the build. I do agree we need more dedicated ASW escorts though & would like to see the T31s capabilities enhanced. We need escorts, not half baked patrol vessels. More T26s or building it into T32s or 83swould help. Like to see Wildcats given better ASW capability & Merlins AShW missles to. Good T31s have space to enable upgrading but on HMGs/MODs record I don’t hold much hope.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Couldn’t agree more. They could double up on land attack, supporting littoral attacks on less-than peer enemies. They are big enough to take Tomahawk V, so they could have a full spread of short, medium and long range ASuW weaponry.

But we can dream on. Maybe the Type 32s.

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Love the wheelbarrow analogy 😂😂😂👍

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

😀👍

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Haha a wheel barrow full of nuts and bolts being pulled along a cobbled street. Hilarious

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

😀👍

Netking
Netking
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Not a single mention of the fact the 26 will be by a vast margin the finest ASW ship on the planet. “

It would be wise to wait until these ships are actually operational before making such bold predictions.

Last edited 1 month ago by Netking
Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

To be honest if the type 26 lost its MK41s I don’t think it would be a big issue. Personally I think we should put the MK41s on the type 31 and turn it into a really focused surface warfare/strike platform and keep the T26s focused on the ASW work escorting our key power projection assets ( the carriers and amphibious groups).

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I understand what your saying but I like the flexibilty the Mk41 gives them.They’re going to be still in service 40 years from now and what that environment will look like is very hard to predict.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Oh yes personally I think we should have MK41s on all our escorts as it gives flexibility, but knowing how penny pinching the treasury is if it was one or other I would prioritise the T31s.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

There is that. It’s outside the Defence website sphere but something to pay attention to is what’s happening to the Govt budget deficit. Right now things are looking positive but thanks to Covid it’s a very big deal. If that changes it’s likely the Treasury will start looking for cuts to planned budgets in Defence and everywhere else.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the link, interesting article.

Apart from the 24 vls for the T31 I was also interested in the 6x ExLS aft of the funnel on the CSC and that the RCN intendes to quad pack CAMM missiles into them. That is something I have been saying the RN should seriously look at as it will make better use of the space available.

Cheers CR

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Single cell VLS for CAMM, are far cheaper than ExLS cells.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Hi Meirion X, I am aware of the cost issue, although I would point that for the same missile load out the cost would need to be just 25% of the ExLS cells. I would also caution that purchase cost alone is not a good indicator of total cost through the life time of the kit and the ships may be rearmed mid-life as the T23’s have. Also, I am not sure whether the single cell VLS for CAMM is set up for SPEAR 3, for example. I had a similar conversion with Gunbuster sometime ago and if I remember… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I don’t understand where the ExLS saves space over the mushroom farm. The missiles are the same diameter. The canisters are common, with the MBDA cannister and launch management system used inside the ExLS. It seems quad packing means taking advatantage of having a silo that’s over 4 times the size in the first place. It seems to me that the ExLS uses extra components, so how much smaller can a 24 cell installation end up? There’s a nice photo of the 32 cell mushroom farm here (Navy Lookout). For size comparison the canister for CAMM is 0.275 x 0.275,… Read more »

mk-41-vls-pc008-053.jpg
Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I tried an earlier response to this which disappeared, probably unapproved because I included a photo. So I’ll just summarize. Surely quad packing doesn’t save space. It just uses silos that are more than four times the size in the first place. ExLS uses Mk41 equivalent hatches, and an 8-cell Mk 41 module is 2.6m by 3.4m. Looking at photos of the 32 cell mushroom farm on a Type 23, with each canister 0.275 x 0.275 m it doesn’t look more than the Mk 41, although I can’t find official dimensions. Edited to Add: I found a photo with the… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon
ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Hi Jon, The spaces between any VLS are about below decks maintenance. If you bare that in mind when comparing photos you can see why I think the MK41 / ExLS silos take up else deck space. However, my concern about the unique specialist mushroom farm VLS is that it is unique and therefore quite likely to limit future mid-life upgrades a smay turn out to have higher maintenance costs as it ages. The arguement will be, “is it worth putting an entirely new VLS on a ship that is half way through its life?” By the time the arguement… Read more »

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Using the Mushroom Farm on the Type 23 as a reference for VLS space efficiency is a bit of a Red Herring – the old Sea Wolf Tubes were simply kept as is and inserts used to house the CAAM Missiles.Look on the pic on your link where one is being loaded into a Tube,Square Pegs into Round Holes spring to mind.There are surely better options to maximise space looking at the CAAM Round size.

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark

No I think that is what is listed on Wiki – but nothing is confirmed.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark

Hi Mark, i think it just means 24 CAMM, that’s all. The T23 above says 32 CAMM. Hope they can squeeze at least 2 MK41s on the T31/32s plus the 24 CAMM. We’ll have to wait and see.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago

I firmly believe that it was driven by the need to find money for the National Flagship from navy’s current budget, because Boris wanted it in the water by 2025 (although that was so last year, he’s probably forgotten all about it by now).

Having anti-surface missiles that could be moved to the Type 31s and would have lasted us 30 years would have been far better than nothing, and I don’t believe Mk 41s will go onto the Type 31 (any more than they went on to the Type 45) without a substantial overall lift in defence spending.

GMD
GMD
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

I would love to know what, if anything the services spend on non core items, like Public Relations, Human Resources, Environmental project, Health and Safety, Social projects? I bet the money could be found if spending was only allowed for war fighting purposes.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  GMD

Wow health and safety is a non core item, glad I don’t work for you. Your not per chase related to admiral Beaty are you?

GMD
GMD
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

Ok ok maybe I went a bit to far with the Health and safety thing 🙂 but you get the gist.

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

But what is the current generation of missiles are like gloster Gladiators compared to Spitfires. Do we want to go into the Battle of Britain with a full complement of Gladiators or Spitfires? 30 years may be their shelf life, but not much use if they cannot penetrate enemy defences.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago

Not all our enemies are peers or near peers, and not all defences state of the art. There’s a place for cheaper systems.

PRJ
PRJ
1 month ago

I’d rather send a warship to sea with NSM and Sea Serpent than a 4.5″ gun. All it takes is for 1 to get through, whilst most defences haven’t been tested for real.

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Now we know why Boris wanted NFS built, to hold parties offshore!

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
John Hartley
John Hartley
1 month ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Around the same price ($200m) as a giant LNG carrier ship, built in South Korea. I know which one is of more use to most ordinary Brits.

PRJ
PRJ
1 month ago

I’m sure NSM & Sea Serpent have a better AsUW capability than a 4.5″ Gun and Sea Ceptor combo? I get the gold plated solution, but ignoring the current capability gap is negligent. Am I missing something?

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  PRJ

I suppose you may be missing the fact that ship launched anti-ship missiles have a very poor record – aircraft and submarines sink ships, there are very few examples of ship launched successes, and all of them in littoral waters. Very long ranged weapons are another matter, so rather than ISSGM, Block V Tomahawk would be useful, or air lauched weapons for carrier strike.

Marked
Marked
1 month ago

Though our aircraft have zero dedicated anti ship capability…

And the handful of subs we have will need to be in 4 places at once…

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago

Excellent common sense reply. You’ll get shit for talking like that on this site by many. You are a welcome breath of fresh air. 👍

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

I’d tend to agree.

It is more the inability to have any decent land attack.

The other powerful thing with a VLS is that it can have a mixture of unknowns in it too.

So keeping your opposite numbers guessing is very powerful as it widens the range of strategies that need to be considered and decreases certainty of outcomes.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago

Nice to have the choice! As I’ve stated recently and in the past, the NSM/JSM would be the ideal solution for us as it can be fitted to Typhoon aircraft F-35B external carriage possibly?, Ships and land-based in the short term. Tomahawk Block V would clearly be an added bonus. “Between Tomahawk Block V, the SM-6 and the NSM, the Navy has a collection of attack weapons that they are happy with,” he said, adding that a long-running effort to develop a next-generation land-attack weapon has lost some of its urgency. “What’s happening in parallel is in the development of… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Ah, the copy and paste kid returns. Good to see the F35 progressing well in Norwegian service. And yet again your lack of real world experience is somewhat short of the mark. So glad you have wasted valuable hours this weekend frantically Google searching weblinks to try and somehow prove you have a tiny clue about how any this stuff works. Gold star for you. ✨️

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

😂 you is a bad man, bad man!

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

The 1st Sea Lord himself could re-brief Nigel, and he would still argue the toss with him if he couldn’t provide a weblink 😆 He just looks for websites that mirror his own narrow minded views, and thinks they are facts. He forgets the Internet is a wash with a mis-information and political BS, especially when it comes to defence projects.

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Agreed mate, anyone can find anything good on the internet to pretty much confirm anything you want it to! It is however about research and subject matter knowledge not repeated useless links!!!! Cheers Rob.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

Good to see you back mate 👍

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Thanks 👍

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

Ah, look what the cat dragged in!
You’re back.
Good.

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago

🐈 😆🤬👍 cheers mate!

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Let me have my Sunday lunch, Nigel, and then I’ll explain why satellite tracking of warships isn’t what you think it is.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

It’s important to see the UK is looking to implement this technology so we can make the most of future long-range missiles like Tomahawk Block V or Perseus.

The new satellite system, dubbed Project Oberon, will allow Royal Navy commanders to pinpoint any ship anywhere on earth no matter what its AIS beacon is reporting – or even if it’s switched off altogether.

The system should be online in the next few years, although Dstl declined to comment on specific timescales at this stage.

https://theworldnews.net/gb-news/hi-tech-military-satellites-to-track-illegal-ghost-ships-running-riot-at-sea

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

“Currently, British forces do not have the benefit of a sovereign Earth observation system. They must rely on commercial imagery or data supplied by allies.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49664409

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

So now you have realised satellite tracking of warships isn’t really an everyday thing by sharing the above link. Warships running at 20knots can cover up to 500 miles a day. Satellites also move. The basic problem is that the ocean is vast, and ships are small. Satellite resolution imagery has a very small field of view. Cloud cover and satellite flight paths also complicate things further. Size of search area versus image resolution. EMCON deception and low observable designs also make life difficult. Switching off AIS transponders and going electronically silent can still make warships difficult to find, especially… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Switching off AIS is an option. Its much more useful to spoof your AIS transmission into another unit.
LPDs pretending to be a car ferry?
T23 being a fishing trawler?
Look at the CSG21 reporting. Some RN units where alongside and the AIS showed them elsewhere. That was because you can spoof your AIS reports.
Even today I can look at AIS info online and work out that the ship that is reported on AIS isnt physically there its somewhere else.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

It’s clever stuff. I guess it’s also why Russian Bear bombers switch off ADS-B transponders when heading our way. Even though they have large radar signatures, they can be tricky to find and are a danger to civilian traffic. Keep commenting, mate; this site needs experienced people like you. 👍

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

A few issues with that article.
1. It’s from the daily star
2. It doesn’t state world wide real time coverage. It will use SAR as its detector and to quote the article:
The data Oberon sends back will require specialist analysis to interpret, but unlike photographic images will be effective through thick cloud and at night.
While useful I’m not sure of its targeting ability for a 1000 mile anti ship missile engagement.
I’m more than prepared to be surprised when it’s up and running

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I think that clown you are referring to is GB, who states the problems of finding and killing a warship/carrier at sea! Ah GB, full career in the RN, weapons specialist, numerous warships served, to include type 22 bit of covert, and who still works on platforms in the Middle East….mmmmmmm I think most of us will stick with GBs explanations and experience thanks.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Airborne

I prefer to stick with mine as it’s based on facts, not fiction or opinion, and no I wasn’t referring to GB. Why do you think the USA has developed a 1000m+ ship killing missile Tomahawk V a/b to counter the threats from both Russia and China whose ships will be travelling at speed? from close range? Answer, they can track them from military satellites and have been able to do so for some time. Now the UK is doing the very same thing but it appears better. “Oberon will use a technology called synthetic aperture radar. If the satellite… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

What do you think the US military has?

“As an intelligence source noted, Google’s shipping data faces important limits. “It’s not the ships you can see, but the ships you can’t see that matter,” this source said.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2012/05/google-satellites-can-track-every-ship-at-sea-including-us-na/

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

This is a Western system. Not Russian or Chinese, and it isn’t in service yet.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

So am I picking this up correctly that there to be a large number of satellites that cover the whole globe all of that time that will track ships in real time and pass that data in real time to the military ships with the missiles? It sounds expensive. Obviously the higher the satellite is the more area it can see but at a lower resolution. So it would have to have wide area search abilities god enough to detect ships anywhere around the globe. An ability to get a close enough look to correctly identify said ships and pass… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I’ll stick to GBs as it’s based on subject matter experience, training, qualifications and time in post. I will leave the internet trawling to you Nigel, thanks for the response anyway. Cheers mate.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Ok The new version of Tomahawk ( A or B) has a 1000 mile range. However it is to reintroduce a capability that the USN got rid of decades ago when it removed anti ship tomahawks from the inventory. Now they have dual hatted the Type A Block Vs with the capability to do land attack and anti ship. The 1000 mile range is the land attack range…you wont attack a ship blind at that range because when the missile arrives , assuming a 600mph flight speed (ish) and a target doing 20 odd knots the ship wont be at… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Very interesting stuff, thank you for sharing. Re “The seaker head simply wont see a target or if it does it may not be the one you want.” “LRASM technology will reduce dependence on ISR platforms, network links, and GPS navigation in aggressive electronic warfare environments. This advanced guidance operation means the weapon can use gross target cueing data to find and destroy its pre-defined target in denied environments. Precision lethality against surface and land targets ensures the system will become an important addition to the US Navy warfighter’s arsenal. LRASM provides range, survivability, and lethality that no other current… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Nice copy and paste of the sales brochure. I’d listen to GB.

Pete
Pete
1 month ago

Missiles and torpedoes sink ships. The launch platform is a function of geography, asset inventory, missile range and circumstances. Would suggest there hasn’t been a peer conflict in recent decades against which the utility of surface launched AshM could be determined. Latest Russian ashm have a range greater than the F35!.Some have range greater than F35 and Spear 3 combined. The UK F35 has nothing today, or for the best 7 years, with which it could attack a peer warship that has any form of modern air defence. The UK simply doesn’t have enough SSN with which to manage the… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago

“I suppose you may be missing the fact that ship launched anti-ship missiles have a very poor record”

What? The naval battles between Israel and Arabs should have put that to rest 50 years ago.

Next Italian Teseo SSM evolution on Otomat will have an AESA radar

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  AlexS

Clearly you have not heard of Op Praying Mantis – both sides chucking AShMs at each other to no effect – aircraft did the damage. In the Gulf War, despite Saddam having lots of missile-armed FACs they were all taken out by a few Lynx with Sea Skuas. In the Falklands no-one could get close enough to use ship launched Exocet – it was aircraft and subs that got into firing positions. Yes a few successes in littoral Eastern Med for Israelis and Egyptians against WW2 destroyers, corvettes and FACs – but that is it. AShMs are loved by armchair… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by James William Fennell
Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago

You could do to share this comment with about 95% of the guys who use this site. The lack of understanding about Naval warfare is staggering. The amount that think it is a national disgrace, and the RN is somehow a 3rd rate navy because every warship isn’t fitted with the latest laser death ray anti ship missile of doom. Regardless of how many times we explain why AShM missiles have predominantly stayed firmly sat in weapon launchers looking nice over the decades going unused.

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  PRJ
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago

HimJames, Does this SS missile also have an anti-ship capability or is it just land attack?

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
1 month ago

I agree with him on that, some of the proposed ISSGM candidates were not much better in range speed and warhead size than current harpoons. I really hope the type 31s get those 24 mk 41s

Last edited 1 month ago by Bringer of facts
Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago

Madness. What sort of argument is an ISSGM not very capable as a basis for justifying no, zero, zilch capability. There’s surely tech on current AShMs to defeat SAMs, radar, countermeasures, CIWS or why else do every other navy use them? It is the greatest betrayal to let our ships deploy lacking such a basic & essential weapon.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

As I keep saying: post ‘82 the analysis was laser focus on stuff that really works and is state of the art.

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

There is a danger that by buying a missile that is current tech and pretty decent at defeating ship defences, in the eyes of those that set the budget , they will ask “why bother with this expensive FCASW system?” That is what the French allegedly complained about, seeing the funding dry up. They have a point. One success of the tie in has been a pretty decent set of complex weapons options. Upgraded Typhoon could do much of the promise of a Tempest to a point. I think it’s a case of new tech ( defensive) dictating how relevant… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  David

It appears we are already putting systems into place that will allow the RN to engage ships at a greater distance and make very good use of Tomahawk Block V or Perseus as I posted above in this thread. “The new satellite system, dubbed Project Oberon, will allow Royal Navy commanders to pinpoint any ship anywhere on earth no matter what its AIS beacon is reporting – or even if it’s switched off altogether. The system should be online in the next few years, although Dstl declined to comment on specific timescales at this stage.” https://theworldnews.net/gb-news/hi-tech-military-satellites-to-track-illegal-ghost-ships-running-riot-at-sea DSTL’s Muff says that, if… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
James William Fennell
James William Fennell
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

Because surface ships trundle around at 30mph, so getting a ship into a firing position from which they can safely extract themselves is much more difficult than for an aircraft or a sub.

Last edited 1 month ago by James William Fennell
Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

(a) Don’t be so sure the Tories will be gone, there’s a reason why they’re the most successful democratic political party.
(b) Should Russia attack Ukraine it will be difficult for anyone in U.K. politics to justify defence cuts – except for the traitorous SNP.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

Hi Farouk, I have to say I’m starting to get a bit more belief that Starmer is more of a statesman and does understand the need to defend the nation. On Ukraine he has been very clear that he supports everything the British Goverment is doing and maintains a firm stance of support. I could never have voted for Corbyn as I firmly believed he was a danger to the future security of this nation and although I’m a passionate envorimentalist ( if we can’t live in balance with our environment we will all die, it’s a simple biological truth… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

As always, a balanced comment.

I hope you’re right, as I’m terrified of the Labour party being anywhere near running defence or this nations geopolitics. I read the membership has already voted against AUKUS? How do the Parliamentary LP square that away with the membership?

And how soon is Starmer stabbed in the back by the left side of the party. They have not gone away, just lurking in the background.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago

Hi Daniele, Yes I know what you mean and that really worries me as well, Labour had to do a lot of work to get the radical left out of the party in the 80s ( look at the damage they did in the 70s). labours roots are as a workers party ( reasonably socially conservative that supports equality of opportunity and social justice) not a communist party that wants to rip up the fabric of our society. Every time it forgets that our politics tends to suffer ( If there is no strong opposition the party in power always… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Again, I can only agree.

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago

Well, with Jonathan, that makes two of us Daniele 😉 Labour have probably lost quite a few red wall seats at the next election – northern voters will shy away from anyone connected with remain, and the Cons will hammer Sir K Starmer, however, I feel some of the middle income voters will switch if he advocates clear policies on Europe that mean working with Europe, not rejoining – rejoining will happen in 25 years at the earliest, if ever. The death of the current Monarch may also impact the Con vote as my true blue Cumberland farmer’s daughter mother… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

Consider me mopped, and good to hear David. When the membership support it I will feel happier. As it is, rejecting AUKUS almost as an ideological choice does not fill me with hope.
Traditional Labour voters can support defence, does not mean the party or membership will.

geoff
geoff
1 month ago

Morning Daniele,Jonathan, David. I think we are all broadly in the same camp. My roots are Conservative light. My Dad was an old fashioned Tory who said a Labour Government meant poverty! As for PM’s, they are all flawed but I could live with Thatcher, Blair, Brown Cameron. Starmer is Ok-notice how he displays the Union Jack on the podium when speaking-big thumbs up for that! I agree with Jonathan re the Greens- I am a passionate conservationist but the Greens are too far to the left and bonkers wing. With regard to Hypersonic Missiles, the pace of change is… Read more »

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 month ago

I was in the Oxfam shop in Guildford (before covid). The volunteer staff were talking loudly, ex public sector middle managers on gold plated pensions. One said they were at a local Labour Party meeting & there was not one single working class person there. The Labour Party has abandoned its industrial roots. It is now dominated by public sector overpaid non job types obsessed with woke virtue signalling.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Ha, I know it well. There are two. The charity shop or charity book shop?

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 month ago

Book shop. All those £30-40 new books I can’t afford, I get a year later in Oxfam for £3-4.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  John Hartley

😁 I dropped 4 bags worth last week.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 month ago

If one was “Rise & Kill First” by Ronen Bergman, I’ve just started reading it. £14-99 new, I got it for £2-50 in Oxfam.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

Check out on Twitter latest tweets from “Young Labour” The usual Stop the War lot who are anti western, ignore all Russian aggression, and are now bashing Starmer for supporting NATO.
Exactly why even with a supposed moderate at the helm of the Parliamentary Labour Party beneath the membership and young labour are the usual extremists completely at odds with the average Labour voter and Starmers official position.

Andy P
Andy P
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

“labours roots are as a workers party ( reasonably socially conservative that supports equality of opportunity and social justice) not a communist party that wants to rip up the fabric of our society.” This has become another problem that divides the Labour party, at least for me. Back when the Labour movement started, pretty much everyone who could, worked. It was easy to define the ‘lower class’ as ‘working class’. That’s not really the case any more and Labour are caught between trying to represent the ‘working class’ AND the new ‘lower class’ (to keep the terminology simple). Arguably they’ve… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy P

Labour representing the working class and fast missiles for the RN “these are a few of my favourite things” as Mary P would say.

Andy P
Andy P
1 month ago

Starmer is starting to look and sound like the part but we’ll need to see if there are enough Labour politicians to round out the team. The Labour party are lumbered with the Labour party members. A disproportionate number being ‘activists’ and wanting to be pandered to. This means the parliamentary Labour party have to pander to them instead of pandering to the voters. This has led to the rise of Corbyn in the past which turned a lot of Labour voters off while causing a lot of the Labour party members to fill they Y’s with ‘love wee’. Cue… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy P

Yes that’s the problem. I do wonder if we need to start thinking about some form of primary type election for party leaders. I’m just not sure that having a small clic of party members ( who are generally either further left or right that the general population) are the correct people to select the two individuals who are put up as our choice of prime minister. Maybe it’s time that the Parliamentary parties voted on say 4 candidates for leader to put up for the general public to have its say on and the public decide which will make… Read more »

Tams
Tams
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

This would be a good idea. Sure, it would lead to parties in many ways becoming much-of-a-muchness, but would that really be a bad thing?

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Tams

I t(ink it would still produce some interesting candidates after all Boris J was a popular figure. But what it would do is remove those individuals with very iffy ideas, so Corbin would not have got through the process and any future Proto communist or proto fascist would almost always not get support.it would add in a little extra protect to democracy, which is always good.

James H
James H
1 month ago

I think politics has become more blurred then this, the old idea that the right with the Conservatives will be good for the military and the left with Labour will be bad has become difficult to predict. Yes the labour party has that Anti war faction that can become more vocal depending on the leader but there has been considerable capabilities lost under the Conservatives, Osborne would have loved to cut at least one of the carriers if the contracts had allowed. Ideologies are not set in stone like they once were for example no one would have expected 70… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  James H

Agreed. I don’t claim the Tories are the party of defence, I just think the other lot would be even worse. The cuts since 1991 would make interesting reading to see who cut most.

Tams
Tams
1 month ago

We’ve only had terrible options over the years for who to govern us. I think Ed Miliband (the wrong brother) was the closest to decent in terms of defence.

But I’m interested to know why you are so against Labour now that Corbyn has been ejected? It’s been the Conservatives that have dogged our armed forces with defence cuts for a decade now and left us with huge capability gaps.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Starmer is mentally stable; a clear thinker who thinks before he opens his mouth; he has integrity, gravitas, a backbone; he doesn’t wear rose coloured spectacles….why would anyone vote for him? People prefer politicians who tell them everything will be a bed of roses.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Does he have the ability to listen to all sides first and the courage needed to force through carefully thought-out policies? Competent and fair is such a rare combination in a politician that I’ll only believe it when I see it. Boris is lazy and reasonably clever, and he doesn’t seem to give a stuff about what others think. I don’t like him, but I admit it’s a more effective combination than I’d have given him credit for a few years ago. I never expected him to last this long. Voters are a mixed bunch and I don’t think they… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Spending on defence and the wasteful performance of MOD procurement are the canary in the coal mine. The UK has a cultural problem defending itself in a wider sense. We should be aiming for as near as we can get to self sufficiency in food, energy and key technologies and skills not entering into global ‘trade deals’ for cheap imports which result in dependence on long environmentally absurd and vulnerable supply lines and which incentivise our suppliers to trash their own resources.
Charity begins at home.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Can’t agree more, nations stand and fall on the strengths of the whole, economic, industrial, Infrastructure, access to raw materials and markets for products, political will, the populations will, health of the population, infrastructure as well as the strength of the a armed forces. Nations fall if any one area is week as an example: Imperial India was a world class superpower and had the greatest economic output in the world. Due to the failures of will of the ruling classes it became the imperial possession of a nation it dwarfed. The french third republic on paper should have eaten… Read more »

Bob
Bob
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

That was Hitler’s thinking and look where it got Germany!

The UK has to trade, we lack the space and natural resources to do everything ourselves. What we should do however, is ensure that we retain a capability in those areas which are key to national security.

Tams
Tams
1 month ago
Reply to  Bob

A bit far, mate.

We absolutely should be looking to be as self-sufficient as possible. With the expectation that we never will be and will need to trade, but you need to aim high.

The trade we do do should first and foremost be with others who share most of beliefs in values; most importantly in democracy, but also most pressingly in protecting the global environment.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Bob

Well, I think you may be conflating an obsession with racial purity with a legitimate sense of community. The Irish recently realised they are importing potatoes; no kidding. We are behaving as if global trade is the answer to all our ills. It isn’t . First priority is to put your own house in order.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

Would need a mighty swing vote to loose the next election. I wouldn’t be so sure.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

To be honest at present I have no idea where our political parties will be next week let alone in two years.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Yes, very true. I think Starmer is bringing some credibility back to Labour, being a centre-left party. And isn’t afraid to talk about defence. I met that Lisa Nandy at work two weeks ago, she was nice, very easy to talk to. Then again, politicians are always nice visiting companies.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Yes I do think labour are getting somewhere. You can tell how far they have come as Diane Abbott has come out and accused starma of being a war monger, which will do wonders for his credibility.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

We can’t even afford to make full use of, or development of Brimstone so yes this all seems like the usual big talk over reality to fool or up the confidence of the gullible or just less informed.

Rob N
Rob N
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

If Labour get in we will probably join with Russia and they will send us weapons with crews…!

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

Sorry rob that’s ridiculous. That’s like calling a conservative a facist, it lowers the standard of discussion.

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

I can’t see it Farouk, just remember Labour needs to turn over an enormous Tory majority, at the moment they have a thoughtful, bright leader, but not a lot behind him. They just criticise from the opposition benches, no real alternative policies same old looney left elements in the shadows, waiting to take back control and many won’t have forgotten or forgiven their stance on Brexit either. The Tories have the opposite issue, a leader that’s now a liability, but a party body with a lot of talent behind them… I would imagine they will go into the next election… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

“we can’t afford to purchase something to cover the gap until the ethereal Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon Comes on line” I wonder if he can justify it now! “It was clear from the words of the outgoing First Sea Lord that the RN has almost certainly decided not to purchase an Interim Surface to Surface Guided Weapon (I-SSGW) to replace the already obsolete Harpoon Block 1C which will go out of service in 2023. “ISSGW has been paused” said Radakin. The navy is more interested in hypersonic missiles with much longer range. The “sticking plaster” approach of spending £250M for 5 sets of missiles to… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Hi Nigel, depending on hypersonics is going to be very expensive ship kill/LA option everytime. Beyond the range of RN gunnery, martlet, venom, subs/torpedos, MPAs, you would think there would be a need for a mud-tier Sea Brimstone-Harpoon-ER type AShm/LAM, even utilising TLAM v5 before jumping up to hypersonics? I will say that in reality “I know absolutely nothing” on this, just observing from afar.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I’ve just posted this in another thread. Something I’d be in favour of for the RAF, a very useful addition to our arsenal. “Outfitting cargo aircraft with a palletized standoff-weapons capability also promises to be far cheaper than fielding additional bombers, making this an even more attractive concept at a time when budgets are stretched. “These Rapid Dragon deployments represent the first end-to-end demonstration of a palletized strike mission, from rolling missile pallets onto an aircraft to in-flight missile release,” said Scott Callaway, Lockheed Martin Advanced Strike Programs director, of the tests at White Sands. “They are a big step… Read more »

Tams
Tams
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

With Starmer in charge, I doubt there would be any significant, if any cuts to defence spending. Nor do I think the Liberal Democrats (as a junior coalition partner) would cut it.

The Greens have no chance. If they somehow end up a kingmaker, they can be easily shut up with some environmental policies. Their supporters would not forgive their party if they passed up action on the environment just to follow some of their batty defence ‘policy’.

Gary
Gary
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

Where have they said this? Holding them all to account is another matter. But can you really see the liberal democrats or Green party getting elected? The two party state is a weakness of US democracy now. The founding fathers always envisaged independents. I’m against career politicians to. Surely to be an MP, someone should have had a real job before going straight into politics. But if you think Conservatives are somehow strong on defence and their record stands them apart, I think you start to believe your own press. The truth is, the record of all is horrific. Alongside… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Gary
John Hartley
John Hartley
1 month ago
Reply to  Farouk

The Turkish Atmaca missile could be a cheap, quick Harpoon replacement. Half the price of Harpoon & the way the Turkish Lira is diving, could end up even cheaper. The Turks designed it to be simple to swap out old Harpoon & replace with Atmaca.

Jonno
Jonno
20 hours ago
Reply to  Farouk

Looking around I dont see anything wrong with where we are going. Our energy policy makes more sense than others. Another Euro project dominated by France. No thanks.

tybalt
tybalt
1 month ago

We should also focus on developing ways to defeat hypersonic weapons, as they will increasingly be fielded by near-peer adversaries to deter and limit our and our allies ability to project power.

Andy P
Andy P
1 month ago

“So I have a call to arms for you in industry. I want you to feel as invested in this as we are, not because of your share price. Not because of the wonderful manufacturing facilities that allows you to create, but because you recognise you are integral to the success of a Global, Modern, and Ready Royal Navy.” This all sounds a bit Commandant Lassard doesn’t it. Basically, bollox. We have ‘gapped’ so much capability that its hard to take this guff seriously. Hopefully our gaps aren’t going to be exposed in the next week or two when it… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy P

Indeed I can seriously see Russian ships and aircraft really pushing the limits of our territory and very even possibly into them on occasion or just sitting in the Channel or off of Faslane and who knows where else displaying our relative helplessness to prevent it or daring us to which no doubt will provoke Corbyn and co to come out to claim one/both of its pointless having a defence at all or the threat by having one just provokes peace loving Russia who otherwise would leave us all in peaceful bliss. This is increasingly becoming a cross between Bond… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy P

Spot on Andy.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy P

The speech is two years old for a start. I don’t even know why it’s an article today.

DRS
DRS
1 month ago

After all previous promises this feel like just talk, let’s see some actual budget spent and proof of testing. Talking about something that may happen in 8 years time is just that. It starting to feel like mod notices about amazing tech we will use is a bit like all those Russian propaganda articles about new carriers etc with “amazing” capabilities. Maybe I’m just too cynical on a Sat morning 🙂

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  DRS

I think you are right to feel it’s acceptable to be relatively defenceless in the present circumstance while talking about supreme capabilities in or near a decade away appears rather delusional. But if it’s all about trying to promote ‘global Britain’ then I get that promises that never come to pass take presidence over reality.

James H
James H
1 month ago

Will we tag on to the Americans and Australian development or go European?

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  James H

You need to get with the program James; we are an independent, global coastal state who controls our own borders; well except for the Russian navy cruising off Faslane.

James H
James H
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Japan it is then with the Pacific tilt as there will be no huge land battles in Europe again….

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  James H

The RN must have best of breed hypersonic missiles if it is to remain a tier 1 blue water navy. Simple as that.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Or at least a peer level missile.

Gsreth
Gsreth
1 month ago

I am sure that with careful planning and budgeting that we have long come to expect from the MoD that fully half our surface will be fitted for but not with our world leading hypersonic missile system by at least 2047. Meanwhile our armed forces will have to enjoy another capability holiday.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Gsreth

Only the likes of Russia, China, N Korea, Iran enjoy our capability holidays. Why are we handing so many own goals to every potential enemy? We undermine our own security & risk the lives of our servicemen. Completely incompetent leadership, all smoke, no substance.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago

I usually try to see the positives, and in time we and others will no doubt develop these weapons. But what pie in the sky! It cannot always be about tomorrow, we need uplifts now. And not just the £16 odd billion uplift where much will go to fill in black holes or go into fat cats pockets for future weapons that may never arrive, or space, or cyber. This sort of talk is the same nonsense as the CGS wanting the army to be able to fight “in war at its most feral” while lacking in firepower across the… Read more »

GMD
GMD
1 month ago

Hi Daniele, I think the FSL has just completed a media course, how to speak without saying anything. I loved the bit about industry not in it for the Share Price. Get real, they are only in it for share price and profit, that is the purpose of being in business. A little deluded I thought.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  GMD

It’s a legal requirement for the directors of publicly quoted companies to think about the share price and profits. It’s less explicit than it used to be, but the long term increase in a company’s value is the usual way to view the success of the company.

GMD
GMD
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Hi Jon, I’m totally ok with that, I don’t see the point of the first sea lord preaching ideals to businesses that they are not going to get on board with. If he truest believes what he is saying, he puts the navy at a disadvantage when dealing with business. Partnership sure, but backed up with a robust contract where the customer gets what they want for an agreed price.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  GMD

An appeal to patriotism …it might work. You never know…

GMD
GMD
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

It would work on me, but I know nothing about designing missiles 😳

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  GMD

Just a tad mate.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
1 month ago

Hi Daniellle – as i have mentioned here several times, nothing will change until the MoD is disbanded and we get some competent and accountable project managers in.

It looks to many people today that the Russian STAVKA is running things here. Tennis anybody??

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago

Did you see BJ’s speech from Moscow yesterday were he was accused of propping up the Ukraine government by sending 600 SF to the country apparently an artical in the Daily Mail had mentioned 600 SF helping to train the Ukrainian army. He stated that we have only just over 100 personnel in the Ukraine at the moment but the Russians must have had a big smile on there faces as they know we would find it hard to put into the feild 600 SF personnel.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago

We would yes, but I myself don’t want them too big anyway.
600 SF?! Who do the D Mail think are “SF”? I must check myself. 😀

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago

And one of the reasons for the UKSFSG was to remove that role from T1 SF. Now joined by rangers and SFAB.

“600 SF” ! 😂

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago

I think your right, I’m not sure our leaders have really accepted that the geopolitical picture is looking like we will be in some form of very significant peer conflict with a decade if not sooner. They are still focusing on what great capabilities we will have in a decade, but seem to unable to grasp the concept that there are at least three flash points that could lead to a peer on peer war a couple that could lead to a war with a close peer and a number of areas that could suck resources like a sponge. We… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Again, agree with that list, which is achievable and not breaking the bank, if only the blasted Treasury would wake up and fund, as their drip feed slows so much to a crawl. Point 6 especially. Nigel mentioned a conversation with me from many years ago on here concerning home AD. I was more accepting of the MoD/HMG position of the lack of need of home defence SAM systems then. I’ve totally revised my position now, with Russia’s missile capabilities it is folly to keep reducing our basing footprint then proudly talking of “centres of excellence” ( what spin claptrap!… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago

Yes, especially as there is a lot of speculation that Russia has changed how it’s planning to operate its sub force as more of a safe set of missile arsenals with which to attack NATO basis. As they have refitted their older SNNs they have turned them into missile boats. The thought is they are not going to contest the Atlantic, just stay as close to home as possible while attacking NATO ports and airfields. considering the only way to neutralise the U.K. as a strategic threat is to eliminate our navel ports and millitary airfields you would think we… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Agree with all Jonathan. The speach is just fiddling while Rome burns.

Charles verrier
Charles verrier
1 month ago

So – translation of that speech would be : “Please do some R&D on this on your own because we can’t afford to pay you do any”

We ‘aim’ to be a leader but don’t have any actual projects…

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago

Is this a bit of Shakespearean Elizabeth 1st addressing her troops at Dartford raising their hackles talking up the future but knowing if the Armada ever actually made it to shore the defenders are all dead ducks, so in a way nothing to lose. Or is Dads Army a better comparison, don’t worry about your pitchforks today you will all have deadly Lee Enfield, Brens or Stens in the future…. just a pity it’s after the invasion is already decided mind.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago

Shhh-Don’t blow his cover!

Albert Starburst
Albert Starburst
1 month ago

A tad socialist but I make the point, yet again (sorry), that the UK or CANZUK needs to have a specific national agency (not the MoD) tasked with nurturing key strategic resources and capabilities such as this, and not then sell them for export. Else we will always wind up in these situations with our panties down and facing decades to play catch-up if at all.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago

First thing would be to ensure Arm is relisted in London and not NY.

GMD
GMD
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Sorry Sean, genuine question, I’m not being funny. Who are Arm?

Terence Patrick Hewett
Terence Patrick Hewett
1 month ago
Reply to  GMD

UK chip designers: their chips go in most of the phones on the planet.

GMD
GMD
1 month ago

Thank you Terence, appreciate it

Matt
Matt
1 month ago
Reply to  GMD

Started out as a part of Acorn designing chips on BBC Micros, then grew a little.

GMD
GMD
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt

Ok, Acorn I know. I used an Archimedes At school, in the computer Lab, when I was a kid 🙂

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  GMD

The Archimedes was powered by the very first Arm RISC chips.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  GMD

Arm are a chip-design consultancy based in Cambridge U.K.
Their designs power over 90% of all smartphones and tablets, the new Apple M1 chips, and Amazon’s Graviton chip. Theresa May foolishly let Japan’s SoftBank buy up Apple, now SoftBank is trying to offload it due to losses in other parts of its business.
Arm is a strategic technology asset.

GMD
GMD
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Thank you Sean. No likely pathway back to UK ownership then?

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  GMD

Was previously listed on LSE, SoftBank is talking of listing Arm on NYSE instead now that the purchase by Nvidia has fallen through. There’s talk of putting pressure on SoftBank to relist on LSE – eg former head of MI6 was recommending this.

Tams
Tams
1 month ago
Reply to  GMD

Unless UK investors or the British government stump up? No.

And unfortunately Arm is worth a lot more now. Partly due to market growth, but largely due to the slump the market took upon Brexit (which is what allowed Softbank to snatch them up).

Albert Starburst
Albert Starburst
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Yep (Sean). What other country would allow all its key strategic industries and resources to be sold off? For example the North Sea gas resource, which is a case in point at the moment. We had the opportunity, Like Norway, back in the day to set up a Sovereign Wealth fund to benefit from ongoing sales, but we did not do it. Worse still I believe we allowed interconnector pipes to the European mainland to be built and allowed this key strategic resource to be frittered away to the point where we then had to import gas through the same… Read more »

Sean
Sean
1 month ago

Actually most western democracies allow this, just look at all the USA defence companies that BAE has hoovered up. But there does needs to be greater strategic oversight in the U.K. to prevent the debacles of Arm and Chobham reoccurring. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund was in created from the interconnects it built. Natural resources aren’t going to be extracted if they can’t be freely bought and sold in the open market, private industry won’t make the investment. The U.K. made two major energy blunders; • failing to initiate the building of new nuclear plants soon enough • leading the charge… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Sheffield Forgemasters is a small light in the darkness. Maybe HMG is starting to understand that some parts of the economy are essential for National Security. Yes it’s a small step but it’s the first one in a very, very long time.

Albert Starburst
Albert Starburst
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

I agree Sean with your points about the blunders, and yes we must end use of gas ASAP. I’m just trying to make the point that we must learn from the past and introduce a mind-set that protects the UKs strategic interest. For North Sea Gas (& oil) I believe the UK already licences companies to extract and sell. I think it should increase the costs of those licences and set a framework whereby the vast bulk of it is sold only into the UK domestic market for obvious reasons – this includes especially any new extraction in order to… Read more »

Sean
Sean
1 month ago

As we’re a net importer of gas now I would be surprised if we export any at all.
Oil is more complex as there are different types of oil, so even countries that are oil exporters often need to import a different oil type – of the products of its refinement. Even after we stop using oil as fuel, we’ll need to extract and refine it for all the by-products we get from it, from plastics through to pharmaceuticals.

Albert Starburst
Albert Starburst
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Yes. Many peeps don’t realise where plastic comes from.

There is both gas and oil still in the North Sea. We could extract this to stabilise and protect the UK consumer and industry whilst we await renewables/fusion.

For example there is “heavy” oil (presumably and gas in the Bentley Field, but the commercial sector could not fund it (bloomin’ Xcite Energy saga). If the UK Gov for strategic reasons wanted to get at it then it could. I’m just saying we then need to protect who it went to i.e. only the UK.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago

I suspect long-term oil reserves will be given a strategic classification and reserved for military use. The conversion of military assets; tanks, jets, warships, to green alternatives will probably be after the rest of the economy had been greened. As for the exhausted wells, there’s a possibility of using them for carbon capture stores.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago

To be honest despite the mystique making hypersonic missiles probably isn’t that difficult as someone stated a while back the Russians have technically fielded them for decades. Some missiles we produce or about to operate not too far short of the technical point at which that term is employed and sensors can certainly be progressed to cope. It’s the other aspects I feel that are part of the package often deciphered from the term in the modern environment that are the real barriers. Gliding bodies, hypersonic manoeuvrability and operating them at and from the edge of the atmosphere incorporating re… Read more »

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Agreed, you don’t really need hypersonic for ship to ship missiles as it’s unlikely you’ll be engaging an enemy combatant thousands of miles away. Really hypersonic missiles are an alternative to ballistic missiles, which are predominantly land-based and used for land-attack; with the exception of that Chinese anti-carrier missile.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago

Evening from Sydney…. One things that really bugs me about all this is, okay, hypersonics for the MK41 VLS’ on theT26/31/32/83…well what about something for the current T23/45s of today and right now! They’re all practically naked! Why is their no sense of urgency on this? And seriously, £250m, that’s bugger all compared to what’s been squandered else where. I sure hope the RN can fight with fresh air and our subs are all in the right place at the right time. Surely, if hypersonics are a way off and can’t be cannister launched anyway (or can they?) then upgraded… Read more »

GMD
GMD
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Totally agree with upgrading Harpoon, or just a further life extension, if the manufacturer won’t do it for a decent price, let’s get a third party in to do it. It’s not as if we need to worry about the warranty.

Mike
Mike
1 month ago

With what financing it? A couple of coppers and a round pound found at the back of the sofa?

GMD
GMD
1 month ago
Reply to  Mike

Hi Mike, you are right it would have to be funded with scrapings, but with the total defense budget at approximately 55 billion. I’m sure there is some of non core defense spending that could be repurposed. I said early in this thread, what does the services and MOD spend on PR, HR and so on, perhaps a small reallocation is possible.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Mike

If we can’t fund our security we have no future.

Andrew Deacon
Andrew Deacon
1 month ago

I’m not convinced it’s a good idea to have your standard go to anti ship/land attack weapon hypersonic. Rather like ballastic missiles they’re gonna make people very jumpy , very quick decisions will need to be made. They may end up being a very expensive but unusable weapon. Yes sure we should have them if nothing else for the deterrent effect but they shouldn’t be the standard go to weapon imho.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Deacon

They’ve been dismissing hypersonic missiles for years that targetting isn’t possible yet. Suddenly we must have them, when others already have them. Why now are we going for that bandwagon when we don’t have replacements for our model T Fords about to go to the scrapyard?

Sceptical Richard
Sceptical Richard
1 month ago

Can we do the simple things right first, before talking about ambitions that are years away and require funding levels we don’t have? What about buying a new anti ship missile off the shelf first? Besides, the Russians went hypersonic cause they want to target US carrier strike groups and they haven’t got carriers themselves and their stealth technology is not up to scratch. Much better to acquire some LRASMs now.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

Good point. IIRC the FC/ ASW project had two threads; a French requirement for a hypersonic missile and a UK requirement for a subsonic long range missile. Radakin seems to have got behind the French vision. Not sure where that leaves us with the subsonic requirement. Maybe we can just buy LRASM.

Sceptical Richard
Sceptical Richard
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Totally agree. But the funding has been withdrawn for the interim ASM

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

I thought LRASM was better than interim. Maybe I got that wrong.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago

Very much this!

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago

LRASM or NSM seem blindingly obvious.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

For Typhoon and F35. Without delay. Are they cleared for them?

I’m cooler about the need for ship launched ASM, as I support the idea that fast jets and subs are the shop killers, not other ships. Nice to have, yes, but air launched at range from QEC or land bases must be the priority.

GMD
GMD
1 month ago

Add the P8 fleet to the list for ASM

Rob
Rob
1 month ago

America is having trouble figuring it out and some British innovation is needed. We learn from each other and we share technology. If we didn’t, the UK would never have had our nuke subs and weapons in place in the 70s. In many ways we are where we are militarily due to a lot of American innovation.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

Hi Rob,

The US have long appreciated the UK’s contribution as we tend to be able to fill in gaps they have. That’s not to say they relied on UK input, but I think it certain helped them along as we tend to look at things differently which is often what is needed.

You are right to say that we have got a great deal out of the relationship.

Cheers CR

Rob
Rob
1 month ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Absolutely true. And we appreciate the US and everything they’ve done for UK. Obviously it’s not “charity” but sometimes it does feel like that! Many people are completely unaware that the US Marshall plan benefited the UK first and foremost (UK got more money than any country) and then our WWII adversaries, who all got less. Thanks and thanks to all Americans – you really are our cousins even if we are a bit of a dysfunctional family sometimes 🙂

Last edited 1 month ago by Rob
David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

True unfortunately we spent our Marshall plan money on Malaya and Korea wars.

Rob
Rob
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

And propping up Sterling or so I read. Was not spent on helping the impoverished post WWII Britons.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

Pretty much and it is never mentioned in any history books even today. Makes you wonder why.

Rob
Rob
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Very curious indeed.

Tams
Tams
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

I mean, the US did steal a lot of innovations and designs from the UK.

Thankfully we are allies.

Rob
Rob
1 month ago
Reply to  Tams

We traded submarine technology, especially in the area of noise reduction. Of course there was VTOL tech. With the Harriers. What we got in return from US could be argued was far more valuable. US Sub Nuclear reactor designs – far advanced than our own domestic designs, Polaris and lots of nuclear weapons tech. such as WE.177 design (one of my areas BTW…the underlying design was based on US w59 which the UK gained as part of the skybolt program). Trident and all the design and fire control around Trident, not to mention all the assistance provided at Kings Bay. It’s a… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Rob
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

All true. I’d suggest being plugged into the UKUSA agreement ( 5 eyes )is even more important. Even as a junior partner to NSA, gives us capability far beyond our means where the anglosphere nations co operate and exchange data.

rob
rob
1 month ago

Yes. We get a lot of benefit and knowledge from this relationship. BTW that is why it is called “special,” which I know can induce a gag response for some people, but it is special because…no one else gets this kind of access. No one. We are blessed to have this. OK maybe Australia will soon with Nuke subs but by and large no one else get this much intel and technology sharing.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  rob

It’s only the usual suspects that gag, we both know the importance of it and so do politicians when they get into power and their eyes are opened by just what they can access.
Probably remain reason that Corbyn simply HAD to be defeated, given their views on America and the SR.
The damage to British intelligence would have been immeasurable.

Rob
Rob
1 month ago

Completely agree.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

And looking at Twitter today they’re at it again. Young Labour denouncing Starmer for supporting NATO. Brainwashed.

Rob
Rob
1 month ago

NATO has helped keep the peace, why would anyone want it gone? Only a communist would want NATO gone and the UK and others isolated, facing down Russia alone.

Colin
Colin
1 month ago

A global leader in hypersonic weapons dont make me laugh We havnt even built one let alone tested one the following countries have looked into the tech India, Japan, Australia, France, Germany and North Korea And dont even get me started on type 31 1 x Bofors 57 Mk3 and a couple of 40mm guns just a bit more than a River Class all the rest fitted for but not with AGAIN. And they hope to use these to replace Type 23 Frigates. Well they only got until Wednesday next week to get all these launched they will be good… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Colin

Why, is NATO going to war with Russia Wednesday?

Anyone would think Ukraine was a NATO nation!

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago

Biden certainly thinks Putin is going to toll the dice.

I’ll see you
1. Ukrainian invasion
2. Suwalki Gap closure
3. Possible non-lethal bio attack on Adazi and paratroop take down of Riga.
4. Kaliningrad interception of NATO air / naval forces out to 500km.

Game over. Gather around the table or go nuke.

Your turn.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

No he wouldn’t dare touch NATO.

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I’m not sure. Why does Biden think it will go kinectic with Russia?

Take Riga and the gap and NATO can do nothing. Endex.

We can fluster and bluster but other than nuke, we don’t have the ability to retake and NATO is a busted flush. Great game of chess at the moment, and the Russians are masters.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

I haven’t seen anything to suggest Biden thinks Putin will attack a NATO state. My guess is the reinforcement by US and others is sending a political message. If it was anything more it would be on a far greater scale.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

No he would not yet, but China and Russia together could.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Agreed.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

1/ Limited Ukrainian invasion, that is areas required to get water for the Crimea. Very possible. If the Field Hospitals are confirmed as having moved up then probably inevitable as I’d read they were not yet present.
2,3,4 not for me. Kalingrad to me is made to be some mythical fortress, as much as it was hyped up by the Germans when it was Konigsberg.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

I don’t think Russia will go anywhere near NATO nations this time. Also we are not going to risk a war for Ukraine, so it all depends on if Putin thinks Ukraine is to hard to swallow and if the west’s economic response will be to damaging. whatever happens ( invasion or not) Russia NATO relations are going to be in the toilet and either Russia will be looking for its next conquest ( Baltic states ) and think NATO is weak or hold onto an even bigger NATO Grudge. what really worries is what comes next, we now have… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Putin said in a recent interview that Russia is no match for nato. He was talking about collective defence, article 5 etc. Then he went on to talk about Russia nuclear forces modernisation etc

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

That’s Putin playing to his home audience as well as unaligned countries ( look at the big bad NATO).

Its true that NATO has overwhelming military force, but it has major structural weakness that Putin will likely seek to use and that’s where a conflict could ignite.

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

There you have it. We, NATO, have threatened him with unsurpassed sanctions.

Break NATO – Suwalki Gap / Riga which NATO have admitted could not be retaken easily and he can present at a negotiating table and call the odds. Point of caution, Riga is 54% Russian, Daugavpils, the second city has an even higher % of Russians.

I don’t know, go for broke moment with an unreported 20k Desant troops at Psov… game over.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

Hi Barry I think it will be a bit less in your face, a direct conflict would play to the strength of NATO, which is overwhelming military strength and probability mitigate its key weakness which is disunity of purpose. if I was Putin I would play to my strengths and NATO weakness. Key NATO weakness are: 1) general disunity of purpose, each nation has its own agenda and different needs. 2) the energy dependence of some of its states, and Russia ability to destroy or massively damage a number of Russian gas dependent countries. 3) The ethnic russian populations in… Read more »

David Michael Barry
David Michael Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Hi Jonathan. Thank you for a very thoughtful reply.

David Michael Barry
David Michael Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Jonathan has made a really thoughtful and interesting contribution. However, the original premise was based on: 1. He’s backed into the corner formed by Russian public opinion and weltering Western Sanctions. It’s been acknowledged, NATO can not easily retake Rīga – so many obstacles. Germany is not fussed if Russia takes Rīga – keynote speakers at conferences. Calling Endex after Russian annexation of Riga, allows the Franco-German pact to push for settlement. Malleting some turban wearing, flip flop stylee peasants had a negative ezercise outcome, how is the Sahel going for France? British leadership in tatters and there will be… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago

And the truly scary think is we have no idea which way Russia ( and China) will go. We will just be reacting and that is not a great position to be in.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

2) Putin isn’t stupid, he knows this would result in all our war with NATO. Anything less would be an existential crisis for NATO in failing to uphold Article 5. The ONLY way Putin could hope to survive would be through an equally binding military pact with China.
3) Wooul be against international law, resulting in war crimes being levelled at Putin and Russia and it being sanctioneded by non-western nations too.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago

I would like to draw something positive from this rather flowery speech. The RN appears to have come out firmly in favour of a hypersonic missile capability. This is good news for FC/ASW programme as there was initially a lot of talk about the French wanting a hypersonic missile and the RN wanting a sub / super sonic missile. This was threatening to cause delays but now appears to have been put to bed. Hopefully that means that despite all the high level issues between the UK and France it appears that the working relationship around the Lancaster House agreement… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

It will be interesting to see if they have a deck-mounted launcher as well as Mk 41/Sylver.

Jonno
Jonno
1 month ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Good to have a decision. I think we were still thinking of fighting the Iraq or Afghan wars. Ever since building the Maginot Line the French have often thought ahead better than us to give them their due. Now where are those battlecruiser blueprints?

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
1 month ago

One gets the impression that the British Defense establishment and politicians have decided that since the UK has chosen to no longer expend the funds to remain a global military power that it must hide that fact from its citizens by giving speeches totally devoid of reality and instead provide a mirage world in which Britannia still rules the waves.
The UK’s defense budget for 2022 is £ 54.4 billion. Of that £47.1 is actually for defense. £5.5 billion is foreign aid and £ 1.2 billion is R&D. Where are the funds coming from for hypersonic missile research?

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

Why don’t you think R/D spending counts as Defence spending ? Do you know of any country that doesn’t include it as part of it’s defence budget ?

Nicholas
Nicholas
1 month ago

‘Highly lethal’ There is certainly a long way to go from where we are now to ‘Highly lethal’ One of the problems of being so far behind is that when you get to where you want to be lots of other navies will have moved on. ‘And it’s a future where we will regain and retain operational advantage in the underwater domain.’ Whilst very true in some ways how great can the advantage be with so few boats in the water? What also has to be remembered is that looking, identifying and tracking targets is more important to this chap… Read more »

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts
1 month ago

Global leader? , sorry but the Russians and Chinese have already claimed that title In regards to development and deployment of hypersonic missiles. We need to get something viable designed , tested and produced within the next 5 years or risk falling even further behind.

MikeB1947
MikeB1947
1 month ago

Only too often over the years have we heard that the UK is aiming to be Global Leader in some new defence-related technologies. However, all these aspirations seem to come to nothing as, whilst producing some fascinating innovations, British industry always fails in the field of selling to the World.

Grant
Grant
1 month ago

Don’t hypersonic have huge issues with being able to have targeting systems which can deal with the kinetic heat? Aren’t we better with stealthy munitions then doing a me too with the Russians and Chinese on Hypersonics?

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Grant

Agreed. If the targets moving and with forseeable technology they’re useless.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Grant

Agreed, great for land attack but useless against ships.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago

Well that’s a great sounding sound bite. Papers over the reality that we don’t yet have any proper sub-sonic AShM for primary armament of our escorts apart from obsolete 1980s marks of Harpoon which is due to be retired entirely without replacement next year, a unique travesty no other navy has copied. Our Anglo-French project, Perseus, to develop & deliver the next generation AShM for the RN isn’t likely to produce the goods until the 2030s. This is a disgrace. “World leading” is taking the Mick. An off the shelf interim(Plenty of choice from loads of countries producing their own… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 month ago

The CSIS is streaming an interview with Ben Key next Wednesday evening. I wonder if he’ll have anything substantive to say.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon
Jack K
Jack K
1 month ago

Do we have the funding to become a world leader in hypersonic weapons?

I expect we have the expertise, as do most western nations, but unless we back that up with money, we’ll never get past the concept phase.

We do have one of the largest defence budgets in the world, but we don’t seem to get as much out of it as other nations do. I guess our defence budget includes things like pensions, which can’t actualy be used for defence?

Last edited 1 month ago by Jack K
Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack K

World leading does seem to be the bollox bingo saying of the British establishment at present.

David_s
David_s
1 month ago

“…floating embassies for the United Nations” – Does anyone else think this is a worrying think for a First Sea Lord to say, i.e. more or less demonstrating being 50 years out of date with regards to geopolitics? The UN is supposed to be a balanced organisation, we’d be happy to see Russian, or Chinese naval vessels being nominated as ‘floating embassies’ for the UN, would we? And they’d have the right to feel the same way….the days of the Korean war and the wonderful successes of ONUC are quite a long way in the past.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  David_s

Yes maybe floating embassies for the U.K.NATO and family of liberal democracies would have been better wording.

Martin
Martin
1 mon