The Modernising Defence Programme, a review of the military capabilities and spending, has now been made public.

According to the report, The Modernising Defence Programme:

“The Modernising Defence Programme continued the Defence strand of the NSCR, aiming to further strengthen and modernise Defence in response to the more complex challenges that we now face. We have reinforced our Armed Forces, and paved the way for bolder and more substantial progress to be made in the year ahead.

This report describes how our progress in implementing SDSR 15 and our achievements under the Modernising Defence Programme have made Defence stronger. It sets out where we need to build on our plans and policies to maintain our competitive advantage.
It describes how we intend to invest the significant additional sums the Autumn Budget provided to Defence this year and next, in addition to the uplift agreed in 2015.

It sets out a vision for the further adaptation and modernisation that we will explore alongside other national security priorities in next year’s Spending Review.

It describes how we intend significantly to transform Defence to deliver these ambitious plans.”

The 2015 Strategic Defence & Security Review established a central ‘planning assumption’ for Defence, that if called upon by Government the Armed Forces should be able to deploy a highly capable expeditionary force of around 50,000, including:

  • A maritime task group centred on a Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier with F35 Lightning aircraft
  • A land division with three brigades including a new Strike Force
  • An air group of combat, transport and surveillance aircraft
  • A Special Forces task group

This planning assumption remains unchanged, and according to the report, the government say it has “made good progress” in turning it into reality.

82
Leave a Reply

avatar
24 Comment threads
58 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
28 Comment authors
LiamRonSteveMdpepaCam Hunter Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
JohnHartley
Guest
JohnHartley

The US defensenews website was calling this long on ambition, short on detail, silent on where the money is coming from.

David E Flandry
Guest
David E Flandry

The “Review” in the title actually means reduction. Can anyone point to a SDSR that has EVER resulted in an overall increase in defense assets?

Graham Moore
Guest
Graham Moore

Interesting. I am surprised a renowned US publication could call MDP, which is really just a progress report on delivering SDSR15, ambitious. Defence is being modernised, at a snails pace, but I dispute the word ‘strengthened’. Only the Royal Marines are at a comfortable strength, in terms of manpower, but they lack firepower and adequate numbers of well protected vehicles. The rest of the Armed Forces are at totally inadequate levels for a global power.

Liam
Guest
Liam

Apart from the RM being critically under manned (400 Marines), i suppose you’re right. Oh and the MDPnbeing completely different in terms of conceptualising the threats and strategy. MDP is a pipe dream that the chancellor cannot fund. It was to inform the next SDSR (2020) and to ensure MoD was focussed toward that. And if any money is found by the treasury before then, great.

Levi Goldsteinberg
Guest
Levi Goldsteinberg

>We have reinforced our Armed Forces
>This report describes how our progress in implementing SDSR 15 and our achievements under the Modernising Defence Programme have made Defence stronger

Can’t imagine anyone writing this with a straight face

Geoffrey Roach
Guest
Geoffrey Roach

Why?

Steve Taylor
Guest
Steve Taylor

But at least the Army is diverse now. Yay!

andyreeves
Guest
andyreeves

time for a multicultural admiral?

Graham Moore
Guest
Graham Moore

Rear-Admiral Amjad Hussein should do nicely!

Mdpepa
Guest
Mdpepa

As long she has British best interests at heart, I’m not sure why a name or religion would make a difference? I mean if she was playing the game just for an early pension and lump sum, that would be horrific…but nobody does that right. GSTQ

Mr Bell
Guest
Mr Bell

Reinforced our armed forces?? Seriously??? What are they smoking in the MOD? Because I want some of that impressively hallucinogenic drug. Reality since 2015 RAF down to 7, frontline jet squadrons of Eurofighter Still awaiting delivery of Poseidon MPAs Only 48 active F35Bs so far ordered Only LPH in the RN sold off without replacement Only 7 SSNs Only 19 frigates and destroyers with reality being only 17 available for active service and 2 hills laid up due to lack of manpower…sorry I mean harbour training vessels RFA diligence sold off No sight of a replacement for challenger 2 in… Read more »

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

u.k service accommodation leaving service mens/womens being treated like second class citizens the st.budeaux and rowner naval quarters(devonport and portsmouth) are becoming alike to 1970’s failures under maintained or updated.no wonder we’re losing our people.

Robert Blay
Guest
Robert Blay

And the above mentioned equipment list is far more then any other nation has in it’s arsenal with the exception of the US. And we have some incredibly capable assets. And the foreign aid budget gives this country far more influence then an extra couple of frigates in service could ever achieve.

Graham Moore
Guest
Graham Moore

Robert, do you work for MoD PR? We are not second only to the US in terms of the quantity of equipment. Assuming you mean second strongest in NATO and not in the world, I would argue that France has more equipment. Our Army is very small for the size of population and GDP. Much of our equipment is capable, but Challenger 2 is 20 years old and has yet to be significantly upgraded, WARRIOR is 30 years old and CVR(T) is a 1960s design.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

The irony is, RN wise, we have those assets already for the QEC group.

To me our problem is how we use our assets.

We use the pool of 14 tailed T23s and 6 T45 for other tasks, spreading them like confetti far and wide. Concentrate them in a CBG as their core task, 4 at a time, and use River and T31 for other roles.

Steve Taylor
Guest
Steve Taylor

Back in the olden days the ‘fleets’ used to go on cruises. We will never operate the carriers at the same tempo as the US operates their CBG’s. Yes the RN should form up around the carriers as you and perhaps undertake a cruise once year. One year to the Med. One year to exercise with the US on their west cost. One year RimPac. One year down under to Oz and NZ. One year to the Gulf. And when I say RN I mean RM too. Deploy a commando with the carrier; a close combat company in QEC. The… Read more »

Mr Bell
Guest
Mr Bell

Is that the type 31s that only exist in our dreams, on paper, on design board?
Until we get 10 of them ordered and in the water I will not believe the RN is going to retain any semblance of adequate numbers of fighting ships

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Yes Mr Bell. Those T31s. Which is why to me they are greater priority than the 26. Despite that. IF the RN wanted to change its operational pattern it could, could it not. Are we really to believe of 17 operational escorts we could not have 4 at a time for 4 months or whatever period operating concentrated, with 1 and and 1 FSS. The RN is spread far and wide due to commitments. Like in 82 IF they are needed to come together stuff the standing NATO patrols and other tasks they concentrate. I repeat. I’m talking about the… Read more »

Steve Taylor
Guest
Steve Taylor

Though presence, the hull in the water as it were, is a fundamental of naval warfare. And though T31 will give us that it is very much a luxury these days. We need capability more than presence these days, that’s why T26 is more important T31. T31 in terms of conventional hulls if we want frigates in those numbers then the budget is unrealistic. Three of yes, doable, five no way. If all we want is presence we should look to a class below frigate and aim for ships like the RNLN Holland class or a mix of other capabilities… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Thanks Steve. Food for thought.

Mr Bell
Guest
Mr Bell

So a task for of one QEC, 2 type 45, 2 type 23 and 1 SSN would represent the maximum deployable strength of the RN. And we are happy with that? That is not a fleet it is a single task group and would be inadequate against a peer navy. We need to return to force levels whereby a QEC, LPD, LPH, 2 type 45, 4-5 frigates, 3+ SSNs can deploy for a single high intensity operation as one unified fleet. That means at least 10 type 26s, 10 type 31s and at least 10 SSNs and a replacement ideally… Read more »

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

fit the rivers to the same specs as the sigma 105114 corvette, same size, 20 more crew, two triple torpedo launchers an oto melara 76mm gun, two quad anti air missile launchers, oh and exocet.’gunning up the rivers like this would make the R.N 9 light frigates/corvettes better off plus, they’re already built.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Militarists and latter day imperialists! LOL!

You really have issues you know….

We’ve not had the empire for 50 years!

The only people obsessed with empire are people like yourself with a giant chip on the shoulder.

Keep sizzling it’s hysterical.

T.S
Guest

Back again TH with your tiny dick syndrome? Taking out your frustrations from being born with deficient appendages will only make you feel better about yourself in the short term. Unless you deal with these inner demons that cause you to mock, lash out and demean people on a perfectly justified forum, the rage you feel is likely to consume you. Have you tried a therapist? Don’t leave it too long, or the inner rage you feel towards yourself ( which you deflect upon us) could bring on thoughts of self harm, and we really wouldn’t want that to happen…… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

TH.

Let me relieve you of your ignorance.

Look up the spelling of Daniele.

Danielle is female TWO L s.

Mine is but one. The Italian spelling of good old, plain, Daniel.

Very much male.

Been through this before on here and I usually laugh it off with people.

Not with you….

Nothing hysterical about what I post or how I write. I try to be sensible.

You just contribute hate, spite, and glee gloating over what upsets others here.

And you cannot even distinguish Daniele from Danielle.

Now that’s hysterical.

Deary me…..

Julian
Guest
Julian

Yet more evidence that TH is an out and out troll. You Daniele have already been through the name/gender explanation with her at least once in the past that I’ve seen. The fact that TH chooses to ignore that past correction and revert back to being stupid (on the “madam” thing – ignoring her other nonsense for now) loses her any tiny bit of credibility that she might have had and just shows that all she is doing is desperately trolling with nothing else to offer.

These angry middle-aged ladies from the tax payer’s alliance really can be tiresome sometimes.

AV
Guest
AV

Nice one TH, ‘hysterical madam’.
Seems poor old Daniele has undergone a sex change again.
Joke aside for those that pay attention serious increase in funding is needed.
Williamson is certainly a breath of fresh air but feel it’s all rather falling on deaf ears.

Steve Taylor
Guest
Steve Taylor

Actually I think it is a very old radio joke from Round the Horne………

Kenneth Williams: ‘YOU raving madam…..’
Kenneth Horne: ‘Kenneth, it is madman……’
Kenneth Williams. ‘Oooh! So it is….

andyreeves
Guest
andyreeves

its time the navy were told your decision of the 1970’s to opt for an all nuclear submarine fleet is unaffordable£1.4 billion for one astute, when the world leading gotland type conventional submarine costs just£100 million its the economics of the madhouse, wanting more for less won’t work, it never has. if the u.k swallowed its pride and did what every other nation does(buy from each other)we could be vastly better off google the following naval inactive ships register showin g what the yanks have sitting around for’foreign sale or donation’ then google AMARG INVENTORY THERE ARE 400= AND 100… Read more »

andyreeves
Guest
andyreeves

lets retake the lost empire,start with malta,rebuild the ‘gut’ happy days again

Steve
Guest
Steve

Not really that ambious. Ignoring the strike brigades it’s all in place and 3 brigades is around 10-15k troops which is about what was deployed in Iraq/afgan and so not exactly a step forward on deployable strength. Ultimatley the proof will sit with what gear makes up a strike brigades and what it’s designed to actually achieve.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

This is my point. It is mostly there already. Classic MoD Spin. This will be seen as an aspiration to reach and things will have to get cut to get it, so we are “more Agile” blah blah blah. But we already have it, as said with bits and pieces missing and the Strike Brigades mere shells at the moment. A typical MoD slant on things. Watch out for the spending review. Reminder also we just recently had 6 fully deployabe Brigades in 1st and 3rd UK Divisions, plus 16 AA and 3 Cdo. 7th and 20th Armoured. 1st, 4th,… Read more »

Steve Taylor
Guest
Steve Taylor

‘Strike Brigade’ always makes me snigger.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Likewise. They are mechanized brigades devoid of Tanks, AS90 guns, armoured engineer squadrons, and more.

Mixing tracks with firepower and wheeled boxer for the mobility I don’t understand.

I understand they are supposed to be agile and able to self deploy vast distances. With Ajax on tracks?

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

yet we build whopping great ships of the albion class and don’t properly arm . imagine the headline,unarmed major navy ship lost 1000 servicemen/women lost. who would answer to that one?

David E Flandry
Guest
David E Flandry

I have read the government report. Nice pictures. [yawn]

David E Flandry
Guest
David E Flandry

I guess TH does not realize the Conservative party reduced defense spending in 2010. And he seems glad that the UK military has shrunk.

JohnHartley
Guest
JohnHartley

Interesting that in the 1970s, with Britain broke & the IMF called in, the RAF still had 400+ combat aircraft (Phantoms, Vulcans, Harriers, Jaguars, Buccs) & the RN had 50 escorts & over 30 subs.
Now the UK gov spends over £700bn a year. It could have good defences if it wanted, but prefers to give the money to foreign aid, diversity non-jobs, MP expenses, badly written PFIs & whatever the EU demands.

andyreeves
Guest
andyreeves

is TH a troll?

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Have you just noticed Andy!?

Martin
Guest
Martin

The outlined force seems sensible and relatively affordable given the security environment and the budget. Just need more SSN’s

andyreeves
Guest
andyreeves

buy the decommissioning collins submarines from the australians ,and the 4 upholder class we sold to canada(now the victoria class)the RN. has lost its ability to operate dedicated ssk boats, again too early, and its blind approach of nuclear over conventional propulsion boats, my son was on the trafalgar class submarine torbay when it left service and told me that the boat was good for another 5-10 years service yet, we pay 16 million a year to maintain the whole swiftsure class,retired trafalgars and even the old polaris type, which have been in mothballs longer than they were in service!!… Read more »

Steve
Guest
Steve

Reinforce our armed forces? Had to laugh at that one. If you really want to reinforce our military, try this…

– Order T31 asap and increase numbers to 10
– Purchase another 40 F35bs and get them delivered sooner rather than trickling down over 20 years. Stand-up 6 frontline squadrons rather than 4.
– Increase Apache helicopter numbers to a minimum of 65
– Order another 3 Astute submarines.
– Ditch Capita and get some serving and ex military to focus on advertising and recruitment of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

astutes? overpriced, overrated, untested,jinxed budget ‘munchers’ i’d rather see5 more type 45’s or look at acquiring the retiring ticonderoga class cruisers from the u.s

Mr Bell
Guest
Mr Bell

The good old USA is not retiring the Tico’s they are being retained. 13 of the 26 immediately refitted and kept in service other 13 into reserve and in 10-15 years or sooner, they will be refitted repaired and put back into service. Good long term planning. Something we should have done with the type 22s and type 23s that were seen as surplus to requirements. Put them into reserve, harbour training role etc then refit and reactivate when needed. They were sold off too early and too cheapily.

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

Have to say this report is very poor and people really should be fired if this is all they can come up with after a year

Politics clearly at play. But we need to set out what we need. The top brass need to come together as one and make a statement both incoming and outgoing.

From my perspective the budget needs to be £45bn pa. which is really a 25% increase. But this is needed to improve conditions and equipment. We clearly can’t fund the force the politicians wish to boast about on current allocations

andyreeves
Guest
andyreeves

the forces must be told what do you want expensive ‘bells and whistles which eat the budget increase the costs of new equipment resulting in smaller orders type 45 12 reduced to six, type 26 from 13 to eight, its just not good enough. and it applies to all 3 services

Mr Bell
Guest
Mr Bell

Blimey I have missed TH on this site. Welcome back fella. Have you been recovering from the inevitable spillage of Novichok that occurs probably quite regularly in Putin’s Russia?
Glad you are feeling better. Any lasting damage?

captain P Wash.
Guest
captain P Wash.

Latest News, Japan May spend 258 Billion US $’s over the next 5 years to Counter the Threat from an Increasingly Threatening China, Including F35’s and Converting their “Helicopter Destroyers”. The UK will not recognise the Increasing threat from Mr Putin despite the Very Large Threat He Is Presenting ( Subs, Ships, Aircraft and Territory ). Meanwhile, The UK Is happy to spread thinly our very limited resources ( Ships, Aircraft and Troops ) All around the Globe In a seemingly Ignorant fashion. Errrmmmm Wake Up and smell the Vodka FFS. An army of 70 thousand, a Navy of 17… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Captain. Many don’t. We had “Sex Change Gate” about a year ago on here! Older posters are aware of it. Many aren’t. It’s no big deal. When a total tosser like TH comes on all high and mighty and superior it IS a problem. Ignorance is bliss they say. Ignorance, stupidity and an arrogant streak like that revelling in glee in our upset at cuts is his/her raison detre. People here actually care for their forces, and our veterans, especially me. I have respect for all of you here who have or are serving. TH? Utter prat. He’s been at… Read more »

andy reeves
Guest
andy reeves

this nation, and india , have a cleat plan and are sticking to it, showing real ambition and making it happen. the u.k is rudderless, talk of exportable ships that aren’t even built yet, large ships, and the rivers are large enough to with ambition big enough for a design upgrade and redesignation to corvette or light frigate.(as many are referred as.) we,ve two average sized carriers, no catapults, no planes,no means of defending them, or they themselves the t45 isn’t going to last forever they’re being flogged to death, and will be knackered out within 10 years.

captain P Wash.
Guest
captain P Wash.

Sorry, I went a bit Off line there. !

Herodotus
Guest

Just get it off your chest mate!!!

captain P Wash.
Guest
captain P Wash.

Chest Relieved and happy now. lol.

dan
Guest
dan

Most European counties are under no pressure to spend more money or increase their military capabilities because they all know that when the shit hit the fan America will be there for them like always. All they need to do is spend the bare minimum to make it look like they are doing something for their own nation defense and they are content with that. The worst offender of this policy is Germany hands down. Germany’s military as it stands now could be defeated by most Arab countries forces with little effort. The countries of the former USSR are finally… Read more »

Anthony D
Guest
Anthony D

I’ve been occasionally dipping into this forum. The majority of people seem to focus on more defence expenditure and what we would do with it. Perhaps it is time to give up the false hope that defence spending will increase significantly and focus on what we should do with roughly what we have coming through.

Do token presences around the world serve our essential interests and make sense now Russia has gone rogue?

captain P Wash.
Guest
captain P Wash.

David, that’s the Worry. Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, China and Russia are all very much areas of concern as are Terrorists and Cyber threats. Do we have sufficient assets ? Do we really want to spread these as thinly as we seem to be, what with the Falklands and our new “East of Suez” commitment ?

Steve
Guest
Steve

Realistically we don’t have the hardware or manpower to do a mini war again in 2018, we also don’t have the empire to defend. Today’s threats are more hidden, in the cyber warfare realm.

andyreeves
Guest
andyreeves

we have a lot of assets but many are the wrong ones or the ones we have being wrongly used. it’s the management of the services that is wrong no vision, no expertise, more desk admirals than ships, more generals than regiments, as for the RAF,what they will do as a replacement for tornado leaves me senseless,if the u.k used the model of japan and india who have ambition, a plan, and the backing to make it happen, in short everything we do not.

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

It’s time we stepped up our defence spending!

“Major Chinese shipyard rapidly expands in size amid military buildup”

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/20/asia/china-military-jiangnan-satellite-intl/index.html

captain P Wash.
Guest
captain P Wash.

“32 Ships commissioned in 2016/17 alone” with many more to come.

Steve
Guest
Steve

I’m just curious but let’s say that by some miracle, Fiscal Phil actually listens and increases defence spending to 3% of GDP, what could actually be achieved with that? What could we be looking at in terms of ships, aircraft, troops etc?

Herodotus
Guest

In the 1950’s it was 9%GDP….we could afford three different types of V bombers! Doesn’t seem credible today.

captain P Wash.
Guest
captain P Wash.

I remember reading somewhere that at the end of WW11 it was something like 70%. Not sure If that’s correct but I guess It is probable given the circumstances.

Steve
Guest
Steve

Considering the debt the nation had after the war and that it will take a few more decades to pay it off, I suspect the 70% is probably right. The issue is percentage of GDP is a nonscence figures. I could say I spend x% (would have many 0 after the full stop) of GDP on my mortgage and that 3% would get me a much better house, but reality is my disposable income is not aligned with GDP and also government’s revenue is also not fully aligned. It should be a percentage of tax revenue minus cost of debt… Read more »

Mr Bell
Guest
Mr Bell

Steve happy Christmas mate. Can I just point out we finally cleared our WW2 debt in 2005-2006. Only 60 years after lend, lease. That was the price of our freedom and rescuing Europe from tyrany and our thanks from a grateful and free Europe was????? Still waiting for an answer to that. They should have paid our debts off for rescuing them and then paid for all our costs of garrisoning them and protecting them since 1945. Instead we get “you owe us £39 billion divorce bill” utter bullshit. Any UK politician with even half a back bone should tell… Read more »

Steve R
Guest
Steve R

To be honest though there’s no need for us to have 3 types of bombers.

If 3% spend on defence could get us a fleet of 25+ frigates and destroyers along with equipping them with cruise and antiship missiles, another 3-4 Astutes and a couple more squadrons of F35s, and a 20% increase in manpower, I think most of us would be fairly satisfied.

David E Flandry
Guest
David E Flandry

How about one type of bomber? The USAF will be flying a 100-year old bomber, developed about same time as V-bombers. The RAF was going to go to all-missile force, so the TSR -2 was canceled since there would be an all-missile force. Then all the IRBMs were cancelled. Then the new CVAs were canceled.
The KGB could not have done a better job with an agent-in-place.

Herodotus
Guest

Well, we didn’t need 3 in the 50’s either. I guess the Valiant would have made it as it was available much earlier than the other two. However, when the fatigue problems set in, due to the low level role, I guess the Vulcan would have been preferred. But, to my mind, the Victor was the most incredible looking aircraft ever to come off a European drawing board.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Correct. Happy days.

David E Flandry
Guest
David E Flandry

3% of GDP is roughly 3% of 3 trillion dollars, so {estimating} 90 billion dollars or 70 billion pounds. That equates roughly to about 220,000 uniformed personnel. More than a 50 % increase over today.

David Anderson
Guest
David Anderson

Great to read this thread, most entertaining! Tech defence kit is so expensive these days, the planning, development and build processes take much longer because the threats are more sophisticated but as a US general said (think it was) a year missed building a ship is a year lost, you can’t catch up and China outstrips the US now. I think in the 1930’s we spent like 2.5% GDP on defence, and 3.5% by 1939… and then 45% during WW2 much of which was borrowed from the US and we were lucky to survive – point is it makes no… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

Clearly, the US is taking the threat posed by China seriously.

“USAF receives first LRASM missiles”

https://www.janes.com/article/85364/usaf-receives-first-lrasm-missiles

Mr Bell
Guest
Mr Bell

Yes but the Chinese are mass producing long range ballistic anti ship missiles able to overwhelm and saturate a defence system like Aegis. The USN is much more worried about these carrier killers as they only have 12-15 BMD enabled Aegis destroyers and SM3 is only now coming into service delayed and very much over budget.

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins
Steve
Guest
Steve

The challenge we have is the benchmarks we have on number of troops required are now all significantly outdated. The last near peer war was Falklands and that was a very unique situation of both sides being expeditionary, which with the reduced empire seems highly unlikely again. Iraq/Afgan were embarrassing mess caused by the lack of troops we deployed, which appeared to be because of lack of equipment for deploying more, rather than lack of the soldiers themselves, combined with lack of political will to deploy more or to take the losses required to win, by either us or the… Read more »

johnf
Guest
johnf

Until we we accept that we need a bigger defense budget of approx 3 or even 4 %, then we are all deluding ourselves that we can do more and more with less. We can’t. The best of it is that we could easily afford such a budget, and stop the many vanity projects that the UK commits us all to pay for, HS2 being one of them. We are a 3rd rate or even 4th rate military power, and fading year on year. Successive governments have all gone along with this plan but it has never been publicly discussed… Read more »

Steve
Guest
Steve

Even with 4% defense budget, we would be 3rd rate at best, we just can’t compete with countries that have significantly lower manpower costs and/or bigger GDP’s. There is also the difficulty of comparing, is a lessor trained army of 300k better than a well trained one of 80k, certainly Russia thought so during the cold war, where it realised it couldn’t compete with the US tech wise so went for strength of numbers. There is also the motivation levels, the attacker generally is less motivated to win than the defender, as happened in Afgan/Iraq and also Vietnam etc etc.… Read more »

Cam Hunter
Guest
Cam Hunter

America doesn’t hold the “ignition key” for British nukes, yes we would let our yank cousins know our plans just as they would let us know but we can deploy nukes if we wanted go without America being involved. We do build the dam nuke warheads after all and we help with research and development in the trident missile delivery system and we do own plenty of our own trident missile delivery systems but we share a pool of them with USA.

Cam Hunter
Guest
Cam Hunter

America doesn’t hold the “ignition key” for British nukes, yes we would let our yank cousins know our plans just as they would let us know but we can deploy nukes if we wanted to without America being involved. We do build the dam nuke warheads after all and we help with research and development in the trident missile delivery system and we do own plenty of our own trident missile delivery systems but we share a pool of them with USA.

Steve
Guest
Steve

The problem is we really don’t know if that is the case or not, and hopefully will never find out. In theory its true but reality we don’t know. If I was the US government, and i was selling a weapon as powerful as Trident to anyone including my allies, i would put a backdoor kill switch into the software as a safeguard. If you look at the history behind the US selling us Polaris, you will see that they only did it after we scammed them into thinking we were about to develop our own home made solution. Whilst… Read more »

Ron
Guest
Ron

I will not comment on the RAF and their requirements as I do not know enough about that force, as for the Army and Navy they for me are a second home. So I’ll start with the Army. The Army has three operational requirements, but worst of all they are completely different to each other so that will make life difficult. 1. The operational requirements for NATO means a European focus Army, big tanks, big guns mobile infantry. A need for three divisions to form an independent Army Corps for European ops, one being a Armoured Div (based on MBTs),… Read more »