In a recent Defence Committee hearing, Lieutenant General David Deptula (USAF, Ret.), a former American general and Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, raised concerns over the UK’s reduced order of E-7 Wedgetail aircraft.
The procurement, which has been cut from five to three airframes, has sparked debate over the operational efficacy and value for money of the decision.
General Deptula, along with Captain Dan Stembridge (Royal Navy, Ret.), expressed concerns about the operational efficacy of the UK’s reduced order.
The E-7 Wedgetail is an advanced airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft designed to provide airborne surveillance, command, and control capabilities for air and ground operations.
According to General Deptula, the E-7 is the most effective and attainable airborne command and control system available in the next decade. He warned that the lack of a full E-7 fleet could have serious consequences for NATO’s air enterprise.
“This is not a prudent reduction. As I mentioned earlier, command and control is one of the most important capabilities in modern air combat, and the E-7 is the most effective and attainable airborne command and control system that will be available in the next decade.”
Captain Stembridge echoed these sentiments, stating that three E-7s are “simply not enough” to deliver effects in two locations simultaneously. He added that such a reduced fleet may only allow the UK to join as part of a coalition, but not to provide the necessary capabilities for independent operations.
“It is simply not enough. It is not enough to be able to deliver effect in two places at once. It may allow you to join in as part of a coalition and provide, which is an important fact, but fundamentally it is not enough.”
The experts’ remarks on the E-7 Wedgetail procurement come amid broader concerns over the UK’s aviation procurement strategy and air capabilities. These issues have come under scrutiny as the conflict in Ukraine unfolds, highlighting the significance of air power and the importance of maintaining air superiority.
The concerns raised by General Deptula and Captain Stembridge could prompt a reevaluation of the UK’s aviation procurement and air capabilities
Just when is the new Defence paper going to be published?
Think it’s out in June.
I think Labour really need to publish an outline of their plans:
The evacuation of Sudan showed we need ship based rotary assets in different theatres;
A reappraisal of the RAF’s capabilities – airlift, fighter, AWACS, anti-submarine, rotary.
With Australia coming into AUKUS and Barrow expecting Austrailians in-bound, a focus on a speedier acquisition process of nuc boats;
Clearer strategy on T32 and UAV;
And Daniele can handle the Army question 😉
It will take a substantial investment, and that needs to be shown in Labour thinking.
What Labour Defence thinking?
This should give you an idea with further links included in this article
LINK
Ah yes, see that before, the loony version that will cut meaningful war fighting capabilities and concentrate on people, in other words reservists and army numbers.
A headline army figure of 73K, even increased to say 80K, is meaningless unless it is shown how its organisation is enhanced, brigades formed, and CS/CSS increased.
Shadow DS Healy was coming out with the same a few months ago, all army numbers and no meaningful comment on CAPABILITY at all.
Reading between the lines, It sounds to me like a shift away from being a truly global power and focusing our efforts closer to home.
I wonder what they have in mind for the carriers?
“In outlining steps he believes are necessary for the government to secure the UK, Mr Healey emphasised the importance of prioritizing security in Europe, the Atlantic, and the Arctic, ensuring compliance with NATO commitments.
During his speech, he stated that a Labour government would undertake a “NATO test” within its first 100 days to assess the progress towards fulfilling Britain’s commitments to the alliance.
As part of this assessment, Mr. Healey emphasised the need to halt further reductions to the army.
“Britain’s security strategy must be ‘NATO first’. The first priority for Britain’s Armed Forces must be where the threats are greatest, not where the business opportunities lie.
This is in the NATO area – Europe, the North Atlantic, Arctic.
This is our primary obligation to our closest allies. After Ukraine, European allies will have to take on more responsibility for European security.
The IR update must secure Britain as NATO’s leading European nation – which will be a Labour mission in Government.”
Ah yes, the “NATO Test”
So, out of NATO area we have –
Falklands:
1 RAF Fighter Flight.
1 Tanker. 1 Transport.
AD Battery / 1 Infantry Coy roulment.
Assorted CS/CSS minor elements from all 3 services.
1 OPV
1 Airfield / 1 Garrison / 1 Port.
3 Radar RP and a CRC.
HF/LF Comms / SATCOM infrastructure.
SIGINT Infrastructure.
Ascension:
1 Airfield.
HF/LF Comms Infra.
SIGINT Infrastructure.
Belize:
School.
Canada:
Training Area.
Kenya:
Barracks.
Training Area.
Oman:
Training Area. Port facilities. Logistics Facility.
Other sites.
Gulf/Bahrain.
UKNSF.
Deployed RN assets.
Diego Garcia.
RN Party.
Singapore:
Logistics facility.
RN Party.
Brunei:
1 Infantry Battalion.
1 RAF Flight.
1 School.
Various Camps, minor CSS.
Nepal:
British Gurkhas Nepal, minor elements. RS Troop.
Pacific area:
2 OPV
So I wish Healy or his advisors can answer this for me…just how will you increase the army or any other capability in the NATO area/Europe by ANY MEANINGFUL degree by cutting any of these meagre assets????
Are we disposing of the FI then?
Are we dispensing with the Gurkhas, so no BG Nepal?
Do we not need the SF to have Jungle training then? So no JWS at Brunei?
Are we ending Kipion? No Gulf commitment, despite our reliance on trade/Oil/Gas through there? So no more UKNSF in Bahrain?
Note his comment on trade too, they do not give a monkeys about developing links into future growth markets, that being in Asia and the Pacific, all of which is important for UK PLC.
You’re talking COBBLERS, Healy!
Say what you REALLY have planned.
The plan is that there is no plan other than Brownian motion of money away from the defence budget.
👍
They will shift money away from ‘Out-of NATO’ areas to NATO area, even after the ending of the Russo-Ukraine War results in the break-up of Russia.
End of Russian Imperialism could be in sight.
He hasn’t said he is cutting anything (although I wonder if Ajax gets Axed) just that we should concentrate on our commitments; and the US will have plenty to say.
However, I share your concern it is not fleshed out, which, as I said, I hope Labour do rather soon.
I totally agree David. And I’m not playing bash Labour here, I just don’t trust a word politicians say.
And based on what he has said, well what gives?
You mentioned rotary assets on ships in different theatres? Very much needed. That sounds like the LRG (S) and (N) which are already forming.
They are one of the very things I expect Labour to do away with, if we are all NATO Area now.
Surely Ajax has been fixed? So why scrap it? The army urgently needs a replacement recce vehicle.
Not looking good if that’s the case. I wonder how they will deal with the wasted monies given to the MOD in future.
LINK
Yes, that will be a positive.
Though it is a bit rich for Labour to be highlighting that, considering….
One of the main reasons the army is in such a mess now armoured vehicle procurement wise is that in Labour’s last term 97 -2010 no major armoured vehicle programs WHATSOEVER were delivered.
( FRES / FRES UV / Tracer / Boxer and so on never getting anywhere )
We concentrated on COIN and the UOR’s procured various vehicles in a panic.
The delay in the QEC build causing over 1 billion to the cost is another example, and there are plenty of others.
All good points. Could add in the high number of Defence diplomacy posts, I think we have about 300 or more posts in US/Canada alone. Would Healey restrict our Carrier groups and S/Ms to the Atlantic and the Med?
Healey has potential to be a good DS but is not setting out any details, but thats not unusual for the Opposition this far out from a General Election.
Ah yes, the BDLS Washington for example, and the personnel assigned to our bilateral nuke liaison and R&D.
And the world wide DA Network.
As to my first point, I don’t see a huge saving for Healy as so many of these assets, locations are necessary.
On the carriers, they don’t have to deploy to the far East every few years, or even at all. I think the 2021 deployment was to prove we can do it if necessary, so if we don’t again outside of a war, then that’s fine.
As long as they are assigned to NATO. Ditto our SSNs. Healy says he supports AUKUS, yet our SSN are deploying to the far east as part of that. Does that go?
I had always thought that the SCS/Far East/PacRim would be a frequent deployment area for a British carrier group given that China and North Korea are potentially hostile to the West, but other areas are available (North and South Atlantic, Med, Indian ocean) particularly if the US doesn’t see a need for a British carrier there in spite of the Global Britain ethos.
I am not sure of the details of a number of our SSNs deploying to the far east – could well be consistent with AUKUS.
Just to reiterate no one on the goddamn planet gives a rat’s ass about the Falklands. I’m serious That is an old British person’s bias from damn near 50 years ago. I cannot possibly think of a more irrelevant place on the planet at the moment.
Ha, “old” I’m 51 and that isn’t old.
Whether any one else gives a rate ass is irrelevant to the point I was making, namely what can be cut by Labour to increase NATO Europe forces.
And I don’t agree with you BTW given the FI Strategic location, well explained here by Jonathan only recently.
👍
Excellent commentary DM.
Ooooooooh 👜 put that handbag down, getting angry like that will give yourself some leaking panties! I see you’ve found another pair of Brit squaddie issue socks in your boyfriend’s laundry basket, hence your grumpy mood once more!
That I’m afraid, is the attitude that led to the Falkland War and getting hundreds of people killed. It is just one example of how volatile the world is.
👎🤡
There are thousands of British citizens living and working in the Falklands!
So you would give it up, so eventually it would become a PRC colony!
The Chinese are very interested and the Argentinians are presently courting their interest.
Mnay years ago another Mr Healey, Dennis this time came up with an identical strategy…NATO first. When elected Labour cut out all armed forces operating East of Suez and I do mean all. Navy, air force, army, everything.
👍
AKA End of Empire at the behest of the septics who have gone on to try and create an Empire.
Is it time to let the cousins carry on in their own time.
You have replied to me twice David and I’m sorry but I’m none the wiser now?
Sorry Geoff – I was on the Cumbrian Coast Line… the Internet is not patchy, it’s non-existent!
How can I help?
Yes, also the UK’s last true A/C was axed in 1978! The replacements were called anti-submarine cruisers!
True. Useful ships when a handful of Harriers were added but not what we would call Fleet carriers.
Hmm, Invincible did a splendid job of being an aircraft carrier in the Falklands conflict – we would not have recovered the islands without her. Cats and traps and nuclear propulsion are not essential for an effective aircraft carrier. Our latest carriers are superb and puts us second only to the Americans in NATO for CEPP.
The new Mr Healey I think, is not looking beyond the ending of the Russo-Ukraine War, and it’s implications such as if there is a break-up of Russia.
Which makes him even more short sighted and dangerous.
👍
Why do you say that?
Spot on, by mentioning Ukraine does this clown realise that a massive part of Ukraines effective defence has been the acquisition of modern western PLATFORMS! Something he seems to think we should stop investing in! Good god do these uni educated “experts” really believe they know, or even understand the needs of a modern, multi spectrum and combined arm’s military?
Child like article written for an audience of absolutely clueless, military illiterate audience! But mate, probably a good article in the Labour defence echo chamber…..lots of opportunities to cut, cut and cut!
I know mate, I’m worried. “Defence” does actually include going forth and getting involved, with offensive ops if necessary with proper kit, not just reservists.
But then, how many on the left link any UK overseas Op with “Empire” have a pink fit, and wish us to disappear up our own arses? Quite a few I suspect. And by overseas that means beyond NATO’s area.
That the UK is somebody beyond the HISTORY of Empire and still a major power today seems to offend them, as why else do the terms “race” “empire” “Imperialist” keep surfacing from all the usual suspects from CND to the papers to the far left parties?
God help us…
Couldn’t agree more, it was Labour that sold British Energy to EDF and left us in the state we are in now concerning energy independence!
I’ve skimmed it – what’s the problem?
In answer to a question, I never comment directly in relation to political views.
“What Labour Defence thinking?”
Reply: This should give you an idea with further links included in this article
LINK
Here is another article worth reading to give us an idea of what labour might have planned for the future.
LINK
Also worth reading.
Dossier of waste in the Ministry of Defence 2010-2021
LINK
Thanks for posting the link Nigel. It will make uncomfortable reading for many who post here, but MoD waste and cockups have resulted in constant military capability cuts for the last 30 years at least. The most recent is to scrap the Hercs in part to throw another £450 million at Ajax.
MoD witheld Ajax payments from Dec 2020. The fixes were done, the vehicle completed User Validation Trials and is now on Reliability Trials. In light of this progress the staged payments have been resumed. This is not additional money, the contract is firm price, the £450M is justified, and was budgeted for years ago. We have not scrapped the Herc fleet to cover this cost.
👍🏻
👍👍
Cheers Nigel, glad he appreciates the skill set of the army but the rest of it is absolute no clue shite!
The outcome of the next general election should be an interesting one. A hung parliament perhaps!
Given the ‘thinking’ evidenced by Labour’s pensions comments then I’d be surprised if there is any thunking.
I’m afraid that what is coming will make BW and Doris look like geniuses.
Much as I dislike Doris he did at least give defence real terms increases.
Labour won’t do that and will just blame budgetary pressure while they hose more money on the NHS cash bonfire. Or the schools cash bonfire. Rather than dealing with the glaring competence problems in both sectors.
Ah, Bravo..
Agreed. It’s a knee-jerk reaction for Labour to cut defence, they instinctively distrust the military.
Matey, not to burst your bubble….Starmer will have a completely different view. Over seven million waiting for healthcare, increasing need in an ageing population and a host of other social issues? The last thing Labour will think about is “defence”. NO politician in recent times apart from Wallace, has an interest. Votes will go left. That is the seesaw political system we have endured for decades.
Think starmer mind will be on boat people ECT like you say Jack ,Defence won’t even come into is agenda ,that’s just how UK MPs are sadly from all sides .There may has well be on another planet.🙄
I try and stay positive but this county is banjaxed. Too many allowed to line their own nests and have got away with it.
Aside from Wallace in my thirty plus years service George Robertson ( ended up as Sec Gen NATO) and John Reid were the best Def Secs we’ve had and were Labour through and through . Tories talk a good war when on opposition but when they get in cut the Forces to f*CK. The Cameron, Osborne regime was a disaster for Defence and let’s not even begin to discuss Mr Alan Knot.
Sorry that should of course be John Knott, Alan Knott was a blo*dy good cricketer , John Knott a very bad Sec State for Defence lol
No argument. Very poor.with no real knowledge of anything.
Well said the Cameron,Osborne cuts even now will take years to recover if we ever do that is.
Ironically if you look back the cuts and removals and delays were worse under Blair/Brown but time covers things up.
As I keep reminding people…🙄 people have either short or very selective memories based on their politics.
Oh yes I remember the sea Harrier going and the Jags ,but your right time does cover up.🤔
Wasn’t John Reid the Min of Def who sent the Army into Helmand and believed they would not have to fire a shot?
Yep.
Sadly agree
👍
Agreed David. Sadly, I’m expecting no such plans forthcoming.
I will be delighted to be shown to be wrong.
Agree David. Sadly, I have no faith whatsoever that such a plan will appear.
Did you see our nice chat about Cyber, EW, and railways was removed from the other thread?
I didn’t! Why? I’m not and never have been Railways or SF; why was it removed???
Who knows? I wrote a detailed reply to you regards Offensive Cyber and the unit you were looking for, and expanded on that with other similar units with such roles, but that is awaiting approval.
Everything I said, while possibly not well known to many, is open source. In other words, it’s out there on line for people like me to find.
Maybe that upset the likes of 591? Or, more likely, some Muppet flagged the thread?
As for the rest of our convo including Jonathons details on railways being an issue…baffled!
It’s been ten years since I worked for/with the MoD so nothing I know now is up to date. Yet a lot of what I post gets moderated – but is eventualy released. Usually. Its all open source
Some jobsworth likes to report stuff to show they are watching and reading what we post here in case it’s “sensitive”. George has good sources of information but I guess that comes with a spook in the background who can pull comments. Especially comments about cockups, wastage, senior grade incompetence, topical issues of the day like Ajax and current ops or technical developments.
You know my views on procurement in the MoD. When I was involved I became convinced that radical change was the only way forward. Buy good proven kit off the shelf and stop wasting millions on some bod’s pet project while they accumuate seniority and pension rights. Like ABM defence – we should just buy Patriot or the Israeli Arrow 3 system. We spend a lot of money on defence but other, smaller countries get more bang for their buck. We should be asking why and not keep on shooting the messengers.
Hi David. Yes, quite possibly. I do know 591 SU watch forums such as this looking for any loose talk from service personnel. It said as such in RAF Nwes once. And the Army also have a small “Info Security” unit doing similar, but they’re little known so I won’t say who or where.
Outside the forces, I’m aware of at least one other UK centric defence site that, when articles are ready for publication, submits them to “up stairs” for clearance before its posted online. The owner of that site and myself have had communication where I’ve been told not to mention certain places I’m aware of online. And I never have.
Whether UKDJ have a similar set up with the authorities, well that is George’s business and not ours, and I’m fine with that.
So I am careful, and I don’t get why that entire comment thread was removed.
Sorry, meant to add, I’m in agreement with you in many areas regards procurement. I agree we need sovereign capabilities, but I also want more balance between quality and quantity, and that means OTS if necessary.
They are very sensitive about anything to do with current operations. After the disaster with the BBC about Argentine bombs not arming properly during the Falklands, who can blame them.
And anything nuclear, especially about the Windscale reactor fire in 1957 and the amount of radioactive isotopes released, which is still disputed. After the fire the government had to take British milk out of the supply chain for weeks because it was contaminated. Some of the details about the Windscale fire are still classified, unsurprising because until Chernobyl it was Western Europe’s worst nuclear accident. Western Europe is suffering an epidemic of cancer at the moment.
If you get bored this weekend and want to terrify yourself about just how close our boffins came to making the UK and Western Europe uninhabitable, there are very good documentaries on youtube about the Windscale fire. As usual, it was the politician’s fault
Of course, OPSEC, of which I’d be harmless as I’m not in the military.
Thanks, I might well David.
Was a parent comment up the thread deleted or flagged?
The way the site works is that the daughter comments then disappear.
If the parent comment is cleared all the rest magically reappear.
I raised this with George when I started posting and he kindly explained!
BTW I don’t think the team are that interested in censoring but if some twit did put sensitive specs on here I’d be the first to flag it.
There have been comments on here, in the past, that were too close to the bone.
Not sure? Mine was listed as “awaiting approval” as soon as I tried posting, and the rest of the thread previous above remained. Many hours passed I think till I looked at that article again and by then the lot had vanished.
There are a few people on here who seem to flag everything.
The original thread maybe still in the internet cache: https://archive.ph/
Labour and defence. That’s contradiction in terms surely. Things may not be as good as we wish but we are never, ever going to get investment of any kind from Labour or the Lib. Dems or the Greens.
So Healy in the 70s didn’t subscribe to defence, Hutton, 90s/00s, didn’t say he would resign if Labour didn’t commit to Barrow, and Blair didn’t recapitalise our Royal platforms. Who knew?
And as to your last point, the Cons will just con, true to their name; now, posters like Daniele can tell you where my feelings lay.
I don’t think it’s down to Daniele to let me know where you stand. At the moment I would have to assume that your anti Tory and pro Labour. I don’t understand the Hutton 90/00 or the Barrow reference. Who new what?
Hutton was Lab Def Sec who threatened to resign over canx any future Sub orders, around turn of the Century aka 1990s – 2000s.
Knew Hutton. Didn’t now the other bit.🙂
(BTW, thxs Robert).
Which will be followed by another one in a couple of years when the new gov is in place.
Don’t pin your hopes on a revised strategy. The last one merely made up excuses as to why we didn’t need defence equipment in numbers and scale but could manage with non existent drones, unmanned aircraft and cyber. It didn’t stand the test of time and was blown apart by the Invasion of Ukraine which seemed not to even be on the horizon in the threat statement underpinning the Review.. Given the Government will not come clean on what is really required, I suspect the Defence chiefs will cave again and a host of weasel words will be printed explaining why what little we have will be ‘transformational’ and world beating. and there is no need to change strategy from that in the first review. Labour will be highly critical of it but won’t face up to the need to put much more money into defence and fudge the issue by referring back to the % of GDP we allocate to defence . They wouldn’t dare do the same comparison with the NHS which gets whatever it asks for and % of GDP is never raised.
The war in Ukraine has taught the UK nothing about the size of efficiency of our armed forces …. Bejezus they’re still going to scrap the Hercules fleet with nothing to replace it
We have to take a financially responsible position on defence procurement. We need to align to our defence needs and not desires.Realistically, I can’t think of a single theatre where we wouldn’t be a NATO coalition partner led by the US. So we have to equip ourselves accordingly.
Well thanks for joining the debate, however, BAE Systems at Barrow announcing a slew of Labour orders could see that Constituency turn Red again, ditto parts of Copeland.
We will all know Wards that might appreciate a coherent, pragmatic approach to Defence that could return votes to Labour.
However, that pragmatism has to extend to the NHS where people like my mum laid it on thick to the 999 call handler, that an ambulance was dispatched to discover a very small hernia – painful, but it didn’t need an ambulance – she was ready for a stay in hospital and some attention – extrapolate that across the UK, with smokers, substance abuse etc and Jonathan will have a field day kicking seven bells out of the system and lowering costs.
Lowering costs will also be key to defence procurement as well, and that will take fore-thought.
Unfortunately health care demand is a real problem, people are not as able to make good judgments about what is and is not appropriate use of services..most people simply believe dial 999 for minor stuff and not in a sort it out yourself…or ignoring the bad stuff and hope it goes away……but the only way to solve that is to actually teach healthcare to children….it’s not rocket science to decide if you just have a sprain or injury that does not need X-ray..or the wait and see approach…managing basic lacerations….knowing when an illness is a self limiting virus or when you actually need to seek help…
But to have a population that can manage their own minor illness and injuries you do actually have to teach them…personally I think it should be something taut in secondary school…not only would it generate a population that goes to ED for every cut and sprain or call the dr for every cold and flu like disease it would actually allow people to spot early and manage risk around things like stroke and MI ( for every person that I stuck a plaster on or diagnosed a broken nail I’ve also had the person that left their chest pain for a day or two and harmed themselves..costing the health system a lot more at the same time).
The problem isn’t necessarily capacity but the workflows are a total mess.
The even bigger problem is that local consultants and/or manager can’t just have a meeting and decide to fix the screamingly obvious issues.
Some of the fixes needed require totally trivial amounts of money.
Also the total inability of the system to identify a patient flow that can be fixed quickly and cheaply which will save money and resources: spend to save with small wins.
The NHS ceased to exist as an efficient health service years ago. Covid just blew it out of the water. It badly needs reforming or it’s going to bankrupt itself and the country. We cannot afford to carry on as we are but there isn’t a political party with the b…s to stand up and tell the truth.
To tell the truth Geoff our spend on healthcare is pretty pitiful compared to our contemporaries. Much of the problem is actually trying to run a system above effective capacity ( hospitals should never really be run above the low 90% capacity and we tend to run NHS hospitals at over 100% sometimes ( we actually have made up bed spaces ). To sort health care we really only need to do a few things:
1) sort out social care…so we don’t have around 30-40% or our healthcare bed base taken up by social care issues.
2) sort demand…train the public to use the services properly….stop using 999 for low level stuff etc.
3) staff training pipelines, we are crippled by understaffing actually train the numbers of GPs, hospital drs and nurses etc that we need ( we have some of the lowest numbers of Drs and Nurses per head of population in the western world).
You really have to be carful about saying reform to control costs…as we pay very very little for what we get out of the NHS..a market driven private system could easy cost the nation double what we pay ( the US pays almost 3 times the cost per person that the UK does to its healthcare providers).
Our actual problem is the NHS no longer has the capacity to deal with the demand…to few beds, to few Drs and to few nurses…and the ones we have are handing in their notices at a faster rate than ever before ( we now have student nurses cohorts that are seeing up to 50% losses as students go on the wards and Simple’s change courses to a more sane choice after they see what it’s like…I would never ever guid my kids into healthcare and we are a family of health professionals).
Like your own family Jonathan mine has a number of now mostly ex NHS people in it, clinical and administrative and they are all concerned about the state it is in and the poor service it gives. I could give examples but I won’t!
Your right to say that ideally reform should not be money led. The problem though is that Labour and the Conservatives only throw money at it without looking at efficiency of care. We talk about defence here but the NHS budget has gone up by over £40 billion a year since 2010 and that’s not counting Covid funding.
My wife who was a PA to a consultant cardiologist was complaining about bed jamming thirty years ago and it’s got worse. I spent three years on the Health Services committee in Devon in the 90’s and argued then for the need to improve care accommodation to release bed spaces but to no avail.
I don’t know what the answer is but your three points all make good sense if somebody would listen.
One thing I do know is that all politicians from all parties are afraid of tackling the NHS so for what it’s worth I think we need a Royal Commission with all party support to look at the future. Take the politics out of the NHS.
To be honest Geoff I actually think we need to take healthcare away from the politicians completely. Personally I would like to see healthcare funding based on a nationally required social insurance fund..that actually assess what is needed and judges how much the British public pay vs how much they are using healthcare…the problem is if it’s funded via taxation it becomes political and people don’t like paying tax and it it becomes private it will bankrupt the nation ( as an example the nhs charges the taxpay around £4000 per knee replacement, the private health care system charges around £13,000-£15,000), so I think the only way is a universal social insurance…with a form of co payment for primary care to manage inappropriate use ( low level for primary care, say a £15..) but no matter what we do if we keep the NHS acting as a massive backstop for social care (because quite frankly social care is just about the worst pay and conditions in the country and is a really hard job and only people from poor nations will general work in those conditions..every one else has moved to Tesco and Asda) and do not bother training the required staff our system will never supply good healthcare.
Again I agree but politicians cannot be entirely removed. They should however be policy makers and not try to manage detail. The problem is that it will take years to move health and welfare in to the 21st century and whilst the politicians are bickering and point scoring it will never happen. Hence the idea of a Royal Commission.
To be honest I’m not mad keen about this either but I can’t think of a way of taking the action required. A starting point would be a H & W tax ring bound for that purpose so that the public could at least see how much everything costs. Freeze all expenditure on administration with no replacements? Admin does take up about sixty per cent of the budget. Move savings to the now integrated Care service?
Health and Welfare Insurance could work extremely well and it could be could be introduced for people starting work at a given age but wait for the cries of privitisation if the politicians aren’t taken out of the equation first.
To be far to the NHS it’s management and administration costs are pretty tight and not bad. So its management and administration budgets are around 8 billion of its 155 billion budget and its management workforce is around 3.7% of the total workforce. This is very much on the low side compared to other healthcare organisations…the department of health on the other had now has around 10,000 staff in central London who’s only job seems to be to meddle with local NHS systems and micro manage from London…there are three types of nhs managers the first two make sure the wheels stay on the third sort spend their time making sure the first 2 are doing their jobs…..and micro managing ( the conservative governments of the last 6-7 years have been the worst micro managers I have seen in my 25 years in the NHS…even someone like me know gets emails from DOH policy advisers asking what’s going on today….madness)
1) service managers…who keep the services working
2) system managers..generally at a county level who work to make sure the NHS and health systems within a county are the right services for the population ( are we buying the correct number of knee replacements, do we have the correct number of GPS in each town etc)
3) strategic central type management…micro managing systems they should not be…checking each system is performing as per the expectation of the Department of health..writing lots of national instructions to systems.
interestingly the German healthcare system which is a universal delivery social insurance model is entirely self governing…it’s council decided the insurance premiums and what services are provided..no politicians are involved ( it made up of clinical groups, managers of providers and patient groups ) the only politician i put is very high level policy around the role of regulators etc.
Much as I have enjoyed our discussion I’m afraid my thoughts and odd ideas are never going to match your knowledge and experience. However I will dig into the NHS a bit more because there are phrases used eg Admin. where what we’re told and reality probably don’t match. “speak” to you again.😗
Hi Geoff, I’m always happy to chat about healthcare systems ( I love them)…. Looking into healthcare management and admin costs is very interesting.. and what you describe as a manager can really impact on what story you tell…personally I think it’s a good idea to remove clinical managers from the discussions as they are by nature clinical staff first…so infact a consultant surgeon is a manager and can sometime be put as a management cost…they manage a whole team..as well as train and plan services…I will give my career as an example as I’m a typical NHS manager and enemy of the taxpay…a good percentage of NHS managers have some form of similar background and are more system and subject experts than managers as most people think of them…
year 0-3 student nurse and some time hospital kitchen assistance and nursing assistant ( to pay for my accommodation etc)
years 4-6 staff nurse on cancer ward
years 6-8 staff nurse in ED
year 8-9 ED nurse manager (clinal leadership and management)
year 10 managing safety and investigating incidents of harm in acute hospital.
year 11-13 back to being and ED nurse manager and practitioner
year 13-14 working with general practice to improve patient pathways across a county
year 14-18 safety lead for a few counties a health systems well as the corporate risk manager for a health system…making sure health systems were safe..investigating deaths and harm…then spreading learning…running classes on managing risk and reducing harm in healthcare for students and clinical staff.
year 19-20..running and improving the healthcare records management, complaints and patient advice services for a large NHS organisation
year 20-23 improving General Practice services for a county, creating some up stream health prevention services and bring new staffing groups into general practice.creating general practice at scale.
year 23-now redesigning a counties urgent and emergency care systems and pathways as well as implementing and teaching on programs to improve management of urgent and emergency care patients and teaching how to improve services to clinical teams.
all through that I also keep my hand in as a clinician and doing fun stuff on boats, keeping skills up on being able to work in chemical,biological and other hazardous environments ( do love decontamination procedures) well as being part of the on call management team for major incidents across systems and have even managed major incidents at my kitchen table ( the government gets its moneys worth).
Sorry Jonathan, been away for a while topping up. So you know nothing then! Maybe you should publish this to a wider audience and put a few people right on the “sides” of NHS staffing. I’m now effectively retired but I’ve been a dogs body and a director and back again. If you don’t know the job you can’t manage.🙂
Indeed the fundamental is knowing the job…that’s why I’ve never been a lover of parachuting in general managers from random sectors into high level positions in completely different sectors…( like the famous Dido Harding…good at leading a mobile phone company….piss poor at leading a huge public health response during a pandemic).
How are Labour going to announce a slew of orders prior to an election, assuming they would ever want to?
No one suggested they would, but, publishing a serious, well thought out defence manifesto, would see a potential return of towns like Barrow.
at this moment in time i envy Poland, since Russia invaded Ukraine Poland has spent a fortune on defense and procured equipment from all 4 corners of the globe, increased its personnel numbers, and are now spending more than NATO 2%.
So are we!
Have radars… two airframes required…simples…Lol 😁
Maybe the time has come for us to realise we cannot afford to have all 3 branches of the armed forces equipped to the same levels as Cold War thinking.
The world has changed, Europe has changed and is rapidly changing even further. We are in a coalition and the dynamics of that have altered massively over the last few years, we are no longer the Major European Continental land force we were, and I don’t think we need to be.
When you just consider what Poland is doing to establish itself as the the prime land army in Europe and if Germany does actually get its hand in its pockets and step up to the mark, what else can we really add ?
I would concentrate our efforts on CASD, Maritime and Air power and a Northern Flank Strategy for the Army.
So fewer Heavy tanks, SPG etc and more lighter deployable forces with a fully capable Maritime and Airlift Capacity.
I realise some will argue against this but if done properly not only do we play to our strengths bur we add to the NATO ensemble as a whole.
As sad as it is to admit it, that is a very sensible and logical proposition. Certainly why NATO and indeed European defence unity and cooperation so that different nations perfect different priorities. Air, Navy and fast response ground forces armed to take out anything that moves have to be the priority the rest will be generally subordinate support units to the front line heavy hitters to help maintain their effectiveness and numbers.
It is pretty well what the commons has said in the other post today “UK’s focus on the High North and its leadership within the Joint Expeditionary Force.”
We just cannot do everything and IMHO it is better to be a Master of some things rather than 2nd rate at everything.
I also think that adopting a sensible collaborative strategy in Europe would help the US with the China problem far more than parking a T31 in the Far East ever will.
We are equipping the T45 with a ABM capacity if we could persuade the Italians and French to do likewise the US could move the 4 ABM AB class from Rota to the Pacific.
To flesh out my idea I’d do the following for the RAF.
For the Navy.
You say park the next tranche of F35B’s (without suggesting a timeframe for how long) but also state we should be a maritime player.
Not sure how many that means you see us having/what we are committed to buy and how many the next tranche is but that seems to be a conflicting statement. Surely that means our major maritime asset(s) will be unable to fulfill their roles successfully as required?
Well they are already parked till 2025 and that was based on the US Block 4 being ready, that has slipped back so K’d go for 2027. Hence why we need more Typhoons now.
Unnecessary to procure more Typhoon’s. 50% of the Typhoon fleet is in storage.
Yes, upgrade with new radar.
No, 50% of the Typhoon force is in reserve, which is not the same as being ‘in storage.
A dozen or more are with their squadron as squadron reserve. Others are used daily in the aggressor squadron or OCU.
The numbers follow the Trenchard framework, which has served the RAF well. Basically, 50% are in the front line and ready to go, for every 12 frontline there are 3 squadron reserve, 3 wartime reserve, 1 attrition replacement and a complement for OEU, OCU, etc.
The aircraft themselves are rotated so that flying hours are equalised.
It is all very well worked out and has stood the test of time. My main concern is that political and Treasury pressure, added to the inept privatised UKMFTS, are combining to deliberately drive down the number of air and ground crews and we are ending up with small, hollowed-out squadrons.
Thanks for that info. The squadron reserve has to be available to fly, if a front line aircraft develops a problem of some sort and unable to fly?
So the RAF still need to call up reservist pilots and ground crew to man the wartime reserve fleet? I wouldn’t have expected the RAF to have enough pilots to man every single Typhoon, as you said there is an attrition reserve to take account of. So a full Typhoon squadron has really about 20 aircraft?
So about 25% of the Typhoon fleet are spare, but not really, as you said they are rotated offen. And they would no longer be spare in wartime.
Block 4 is currently scheduled for 2029, TR-3 may be delayed until 2024.
“As for when exactly Block 4 F-35s will enter the EW arena, the current goal is for TR-3 to roll out with new production Lot 15 through 17 F-35 deliveries. Lockheed Martin is hoping to begin delivering Lot 15 jets in mid-2023.
According to Air Force budget justification documents for Fiscal Year 2023, all F-35s from Lot 5 to Lot 14 will be retrofitted with TR-3.
Then, the corresponding Block 4 upgrades to follow aren’t projected to wrap until 2029, if everything goes as intended. Block 4 will be introduced beginning with Lot 17 F-35s.”
I would prefer if the UK MoD put money into stealth drones soon. There is no time to wait until 2035. Most likely even Turkey could beat us to it, at the pace we are moving now.
👍
What would you lose from the Army to fund that?
Nothing as I think the decision to peg the U.K army at just 1 Brigade has already been made.
And as no Politician is going to boost the Defence budget any time soon what would you cut to fund an Armoured Division ?
Ha! Nice dodge mate. 😉 It is more than 1 brigade, as you must know, many more, unless you mean an with an enduring deployment.
I won’t bother listing the Brigades, be they deployable manoeuvre formations or support Bdes with the Field Troops.
I believe FS funding is allocated, CH3, Boxer, with more planned, MFP, Apache E, Ajax, all the building blocks of our “Armoured Division”
So considering the recent uplift by BJ which is paying for stuff like CAAM, NSM, a near doubling of our MLRS, new SHORAD, CAAM ER, C-UAV, and other items like AI, Space assets, the Minerva constellation, and other assets, I’d not cut any of the RAF or RN at all and as those programs are progressing.
Which is why I’m a bit confused at where the cash comes from to pay for 48 more Typhoon, 7 more escorts, an additional SSNR, and 60 new Merlin types!!
However, as I’ve said countless times on here, I do believe in getting a better balance between OTS and sovereign capabilities Don’t pay top dollar all the time.
So how about Patria and Blackhawk for starters instead of some of the additional Boxer and AW?
Or the MoD being able to spend it’s budget efficiently and effectively instead of the current in year stranglehold administered by HMT, which just delays and pushes costs up.
Sorry about the “Dodge” maybe I should be a Politician as answering a question with a question is their standard practice.
Yes I do know that we are going to have a re constituted 3 Armoured “division” but given the numbers of of CH3 being produced it isn’t a Division I’d recognise.
As for how to afford my wish list it all relies on using the annual budget effectively, a bit of necessary extra funding and exploiting some recent opportunities.
Up front I have never liked the idea of the T32 frigate being a Mothership to Drones, it is completely counter intuitive.
I suspect that the penny may drop that actually the best vessel for this may just be RFA Stirling Castle and the like. So the idea of tying up a Frigate to do the same job is just stupid.
I would cancel the T32 and buy 3 extra T31 for a full flotilla and use the savings towards 4 more T26.
Which bearing mind the economies of scale in the supply chain given the RAN and RCN buys are now a lot more affordable than they were.
Cost of 1st block of 3 is @£3.94 billion (£1.31 billion each), cost of 2nd block of 5 is @£4.2 billion (£840 million each). So yes you would need extra funding of 2 to 3 billion. but it maintains the Clyde shipbuilding till T83.
The SSN(R) is no longer a stand alone build, we will be building a hell of a lot of the AUKUS boats components and that is going to mean an agreed enlarged build schedule.
The economies of scale involved with 19/20 boats will probably fund an 8th boat (or more). Nice thing is BAe and RR will be having their cost feet over the fires of 2 countries not just us.
The Typhoons would be the Tricky bit and may actually have to be funded in order to maintain BAe and our Sovereign build capacity. Also as Germany is now signed for 48 new builds the cost should reduce.
The F35B buy decision may have to slip backwards from 2025 to 2029 because I cannot see us buying any before Block 4 is finished. Which frees up budget and I will bet Tempest slips backwards. So what does BAe build ?
Wedgetail is a no brainer as we already have them in build and have bought the 5 radars. The opportunity to keep these in build a little longer is that we could tender for the NATO buy.
As for the Merlin’s well their scheduled OOS is presently 2030 (which may get extended) and there is already a project for a new medium helo for the Army/RAF so I’d Piggy back on that.
So yes overall we would need more funding but an extra 1 billion for 10 years.
As for CAMM-ER I didn’t think we had ordered any just CAMM for Sky Sabre and Sea Ceptre ?
Ha ha, that’s ok, it wasn’t a criticism, just a laugh. Yes, very politician like!!
I’ll give this long post the reply it deserves later, out at the mo. Lots to consider mate.
The US is the largest single contributor to the NATOAEWF Budget and it will influence any NATO E7 Buy. Also, a production line of 3 second hand ac being carried our under a sub contract arrangements by Boeing is nothing compared to a production line of 15-25 new build ac directly run by Boeing. NATO will buy its E7’s from an enlarged US production line and will probably follow the USAF and base the conversions on new build airframes. .
A brigade is about 5,000 troops. Clearly we have more than a brigade.
The problem is that it would be an excuse to trim the overall budget with 50% reinvested and 50% dividend handed to Treasury for NHS to waste.
Common sense that. I read a USN admirals comments last year after QE sailed through the Pacrim. He said Brit carriers could be used better elsewhere. Northern flank is the obvious, but the Chicoms are into SA and Argentina bigtime. The old enslavement by massive debt routine they play everywhere. And you are right, we need lighter land, and more capable maritime and airlift.
We are only likely to deploy one carrier group at a time. Sounds like the US want to rule the roost in Pacrim opposing China and they certainly have enough carriers to do that although Sunak advocates UK doing an Asia Pacific tilt. Not sure how this will pan out. As well as the Northern flank our carrier group could operate in the Med or Atlantic if the Yanks don’t want us in their back yard.
As for wanting the army going lighter, you must realise that all the threat nations have a lot of heavy equipment?
Then what of AUKUS?
US has signed up to that and AUS spending will reduce build costs as the pace will be higher?
SB, Are you saying it is inconsistent for a US Admiral to question the usefulness of a British carrier group in the SCS/RimPac whilst the US politicians champion AUKUS?
Precisely.
The reality is that a QEC would be a gift to USMC/Japan if the ballon went up.
It is an essential uplift in capacity given that only 2 maybe 3 US super carriers are ever deployable.
Thanks. All clear. BTW I recently read that a US carrier is non-operational fully for 5 years whilst its reactor is refuelled and the ship given a major overhaul – incredible!
Well yes, I’ve argued for a RN/RAF/Intell 1st doctrine for ages.
But we still need at minimum 1 fully equipped, deployable Division to join in any major op in coalition with NATO/US as needed. Our P5 position, to me, demands such.
Sadly I disagree the war in Ukraine has show that any war can turn into a long drawn out slog and become a war of attrition and we need the armed forces on the ground to be able to backup our NATO allies in an all out ground war
The big change in Europe post UK invasion is Poland. And I’d say this to Daniele as well princely what good is a single deployable Armoured Division which might be ready in 8 years time. Meanwhile Poland will have 1500 modern MBT, 600+ Modern SPG, 100’s of HIMARS and a local supply chain.
And one thing is certain Poles know how to fight Russians.
Or we use those resources to ensure the Northern Flank and the Baltic is secure. Nice thing is such a capability matches up well with any re emerging Argentinian issues.
1 Armoured division of completely different kit is just a waste of resources and a logistical headache to boot. IMHO
Do you think it is right that Poland and Germany should bear the brunt of the defence of the central region in Europe? We supported our continental European allies in both world wars in the central region. Poland and Germany plus maybe France and Italy is not enough to be in the front line against a future reformed Russian armed forces. A mordernised British division is not unimportant. It would be all hands to the pumps if Russia seriously threatened NATO allies in the East. Our division would be very useful and could defend against 3 or more Russian divisions.
Your last point does not stack up. Every country in NATO has different equipment although I accept that Leopard tanks are used by a number of our allies. Does not make logistics overly hard. We have much experience of operating our kit at distance from the UK and have our own logistics. We have never suffered because we could not source tank ammunition from Polish forces or spare parts from the Estonian army.
Hell Ukraine operates:
Leopard 1, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, M1 Abrams, T-55, T-72, PT-91, T-80, T-90 and T-64. If Ukraine, a single country, can somehow manage that mess of logistics (let alone their plethora of IFV’s, APC’s, MRAP’s, Ammunition calibers etc) then NATO, the most powerful alliance in the world, can probably handle the fact that some of it’s member states have a different MBT than others.
Also not only is it not right that Poland and Germany should bear the brunt of fighting in central europe (they might ask why they are in NATO) but it’s also actively not in our self interest. What a lot of the “focus on the sea lanes” people forget is that, rightly or wrongly, fighting the enemy directly on the main front is what get’s you a buy in with credibility. In simple army terms focusing on the sea lanes is the equivilent of going “I’ll go gather the moss” when you’re building a model. Yes it’s important, yes it’ll need to be done, but it looks to everyone else like you’ve got slopey shoulders and are shirking your responsibility, especially when that involves letting other nations do the dying. This kind of thinking leads to decades of bad feeling and strained relations post war (and also a lack of say at the negotiating table at the end of the war).
Absolutely Dern. In any conflict in Europe, the Western European nations – Germany, France, UK, Italy Spain etc – will need to reinforce the frontline NATO nations, most of which are small nations in terms of population and military capability.
That reinforcement requires significant air power and armoured infantry units. The role of the navy would be a fairly limited one, as the Russian navy does not pose much of a threat.
The USA expects NATO Europe to look after its own backyard, specifically Africa and the Gulf. We are doing what we can with SFABs, Rangers and the RM Cdo in the Gulf. We do not have any aircraft or land forces to offer to the Indo-Pacific theatre. It is militarily far beyond our reach.
The only advocates of a tilt to the Indo Pacific are a bunch of politicians from the ruling party, who are trying to make Brexit work, and the Royal Navy, whose leitmotif after the Cold War was ‘Out of area or out of business’.
My concern is that the obvious military strategy ehereby NATO Europe contains Russia and its motley allies, while USA and Pacific allies contain Chinese expansionism, is being stood on its head in the UK for all the wrong reasons. Providing one carrier with a small air wing of short-range aircraft seems to have become a great status symbol – for some in the UK, if less so among our peers – and is disrupting sensible military strategy.
We know that the Pacific is half a world away and anything we send will be small and pretty vulnerable,. The emphasis must be on the European front and it has to be primarily air and land power. The navy can usefully do ASW in Eastlant and the High North plus specialist MCMV, survey etc. A few (3) underarmed T31s in the Gulf and Indian Ocean is about as far East as we should or need to venture.
The thing that the tilt to the pacific ignores is: You can’t win a war with a Navy. You can stop yourself from loosing one yes, ala Britain v Napoleonic France or the Nazis, but you have to put boots on the ground at the end of the day to win it.
At the end of the day, if it were to kick off in China, yes we’ lead with sending a carrier group out there (and again, much like a British Armoured division being poopoo’d we shouldn’t poo poo a British CSG, that could realistically represent a fifth to a sixth of the combat power deployed by the west) but eventually we’d probably be expected to put an armoured force ashore alongside the Americans.
Something that’s convenient to ignore until you really think about it.
Dern, I am glad we agree. If the balloon goes up in eastern/Central Europe, we are all ‘in it’. You are right that we should not be ‘gathering the moss’.
Far too much is made about commonality of logistics etc. Yes it is a good idea, but in all my years of soldiering in Germany I never got my Land Rover or whatever filled up by a Belgian, Dane or American. Also I never had an issue that I could only get Chally spares for my REME FRG from a British supply system.
Well said that, the British Army is far from incapable and is very.much more than a Brigade. Some people seem to forget or conveniently ignore that one of the UK’s prime commitments to NATO and by definition European defence lies in the ARRC. It is NATO’s only truly deployable Corps (the give away is in the name ‘ Rapid Reaction Corps ‘ ) and although multi-national by design it is no co-incidence that it is located at Innsworth in Gloucestershire and since formation has always been commanded by a Brit. One of NATO”s few truly effective and proven multi-national formations , it can take under command a German Panzer Div, French or Italian Armd Div, as well as multiple cocktails of individual Bdes’s , however at its core lies the UK Armd Div (was 1 Div now 3 Div), and fielding that Division is key to our contribution to the whole.. That having been said it should not be overlooked that we are also the main contributor to its (actually deployable) Corps HQ , Signals Regt, Support Battalion, rotary aviation assets etc, as well as being a major contributor to its long range fires. DSACEUR, currently Gen Tim Radford is always a Brit and it is pretty certain we would not retain this post and the subsequent influence over European defence if we could not field a viable Armd Div nor had we retained command of the ARRC.
You don’t think that a NATO armoured Division would make a difference fighting the Russians?
No I didn’t say that at all, just that one solitary U.K armoured division will not add much to the sheer numbers Poland will have. Does anyone actually think we are suddenly going to massively boost overall defence expenditure to recapitalise our Heavy Land force ?
There is zero Political will in either main parties to increase Defence expenditure above 2.2%.
Nope instead to fund the increase necessary to provide just 1 armoured division they would just cut elsewhere and quite simply that would be insane.
Reality time is that we are de-facto pretty well out of that business (Afghanistan and Iraq saw to that) and short of a massive boost we cannot afford to get back into it. We have no sovereign industrial new build capability anymore and no one seems to be even thinking of producing more CR3s than 148 which is a brigades worth.
As for leaving it to Poland and Germany how does reinforcing the Northern flank and securing the sea lanes not help ? After all Finland is now 50% of the entire NATO / Russian border and we are ideally suited to reinforce it.
IMHO one thing I would seriously consider is acquiring a renewed tactical Nuclear strike capacity (just like France).
Also I suspect that one of lessons that will be learnt from the present conflict will be for Russia to avoid a direct slug fest in future.
If you look at what Russia has prioritised over the last 20 years it isn’t armour, it is Submarines (SSBN, SSN and SSGN), littoral naval forces, amphibious ships, missiles and Cyber.
So rebuilding our armoured forces might just be a wee bit needless.
Good point ‘re Russian missiles and subs, I’ve suggested that myself. That is their primary threat, with cyber. One reason is like some home GBAD.
‘If you look at what Russia has prioritised over the last 20 years it isn’t armour’ – exactly and that is why they are losing on the battlefield and are paying the price in treasure and blood. Fortunately perhaps for both us and Ukraine they have prioritised expensive exotic toys over that which they actually need – forces capable of both taking and holding ground.
It also in theory has the ability to throttle Ukraine navally, and from the air, yet has proven entirely incapable of doing so. It’s Navy has effectively been neutralised by the Ukranian Army, and despite it’s investment it in Amphib ships, it’s will, and perhaps ability, to launch an amphibious operation seems very lacking.
A solitary division is still a division and that is not an insignificant amount of combat power, and at the end of the day, that extra division can be the difference, so it shouldn’t be snubbed.
The Northern Flank provides the same issues as the “Naval Flank” it’s politically easy to sell at home because it’s low risk, which I presume is what draws you there. It’s also a secondary theatre, and choosing to only engage there sends the same signal: We don’t want to take risk, you guys take risk.
It leaves you in the same position re influence and relations after the war as focusing on the naval front. As a founding member of NATO, and a permanant member of the UNSC, it’s not a good look turning to our allies and saying “You’re on your own on the main front, we won’t help there.” (Yes even if that help is “just” one division.)
If you’d actually read my reply to Graham above (which I’m assuming you have because otherwise boy you are reaching), then you’d know I’m not denying “it would help” but that it is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that would fracture NATO and damage our position within the alliance.
👍👍👍
Mate, you have your wish already. The army which once had 900 Chieftains is transitioning to a fleet of just 148 tanks and the numbers of SPGs has reduced from 179 AS90s to two regiments of 24 guns each plus some in storage, this fleet to be replaced by at least 14 wheeled, not tracked, Archer guns.
We can no longer field just one armoured division of three tank-equipped manouevre brigades, whereas we once had four armoured divisions under a Corps HQ.
Not saying we should not have reduced the heavy metal following the end of the Cold War, of course that was required, but we have cut this kit many times since Options for Change solely for economic reasons. We have the bare minimum of heavy kit already.
Agreed. Nothing left to cut if we are to retain any capability in combined arms manoeuvre at at all. 3 UK needs to be retained and returned to a respectable set up, ideally with 3 identical brigades with the right amount of CS/CSS.
Agreed in full, I would also retain the ISTAR Bde however but perhaps restructured to refocus on target acquisition and STAP. IMHO retasking 1 Bde to ISTAR is no substitute for restoring a third properly equipped and manned Armd Bde. – have always been a believer in the ‘ rule of three’s. . ‘ Also I would restore 1 Arty Bde ( an excellent formation ) to its core function of co- ordinating long range fires by giving it the 2 X Reg and 1 Res MLRS Regt’s as well as the Archer long range 155mm Regt. Would then re- group what survives of the AS90 Regts back into the three Armd Bdes to provide Arty close support. This would then restore a balanced and capable UK Armd Div of 1 X ISTAR Bde, 3 X Armd Bdes and 1 X Deep Strike Arty Bde fully capable of forming a more than respectable part of a NATO Corps – ideally of course the ARRC.
👍
As we’re already paying for 5 very expensive radars which are what the E7 is really all about, ithe procurement of two additional Airframes on which to mount them is perfectly logical…..times have changed….along with our needs…
Are the airframes still in production? I believe it is based on the 737-700 or -800. Acquiring more baseline models to convert could prove difficult.
The obvious question comes to mind, why should the U.K. be operating in two theatres providing command and control and the rest of NATO provides nothing? You do wonder at the level of intelligence and even common sense when reading some of these reports.
Well I suppose it means we alway need to be ensuring our own airspace security and because the UK has global responsibility and territorial responsibility we also may need to operate at the same time in another theatre…basically he was say he does not think 3 airframes will allow the UK to do both and would need someone to help them out with one..which is true…
You’ve one E7 in the sky’s above Britain and it needs to be up there 24/7 so you need an absolute minimum of three for it and the same in any other area of area of conflict that takes you to 6 with one in reserve incase one of your operational 6 goes tits up
I agree this absolutely madness not to have a minimum of 5 Wedgetail.. I would also have an option for another 2.
We live in dark times. This includes slow procurement of all our aircraft types.. Our Maritime aircraft is the bare bone requirements also. Cutting back on F35 squadrons is also madness. Puma replacement. let alone the type 45 destroyer from original 12 to 6. Type 26 orders should be 12 Type 31 10 and the type 32 should be 10.
Our challenger 3 tanks are way behind schedule and should be again minimum of 200 to 250.
Are armed forces is now beyond bare bones and would take a minimum of 5% annual spend over 20 the next 20 years to bring us back to a standard force again
Order five aircraft.
Reduce order to three to save money.
Find out we have to buy all five radars
Store spare radars for a few years
Realise we do need five aircraft after all
Send spare radars away to be “upgraded”
Order two additional airframe conversions
Acquire five airframes for double the original cost
Sound about right?
you been this way before I take it …
Instead of giving the UK a hard time on procurement perhaps America and Biden in particular can stop the negative behaviour toward the UK, and give the Brits a free trade deal? This would lift the economy and allow UK to spend more on defence.
Joe is a Provo lover. And all purchases of US kit have strings attached. Thats how the MIC keeps control. We need to look outside of the box for kit in future. Some epic equipment is made elsewhere.
🤣
Agreed. I look at Archer, the latest versions of Black Panther, the new KF-51 Panthers, the CV90 ecosystem, Mjolner mortars, the Lynx IFV and Oerlikon Skyguard and get all misty eyed wishing we had the gumption and political bravery to buy off the shelf a bit more often than we do. As you say, some absolutely epic kit there. Really wonderful stuff.
Can we share with our European partners planes 4 and 5 ? Northern flank might be interested.
We do, our AEWs aircraft are assigned to the NATO AEW Force (currently 14 E3s) and are tasked accordingly. The UK can withdraw its assigned aircraft for UK National missions.
I don’t get it ..we keep saying the defence is getting a raise ..and we are the 5th or 6th highest defence spending country and yet our capabilities are a joke.. where the he’ll is all the money going and when will we get a clear picture of what our military is actually designed to do ..someone I’d really appreciate some kind of clarification as reading through the posts it looks depressing
need a wod of wedge to have wedge
He’s right of course but the Wedgetail issue is indicative of a wider problem. If you systematically underfund everything for a long period, you end up spending more in the long run to maintain capability.
In an ideal world we would have eight or nine Wedgetails, twice the number of Poseidons, we’d have a few squadrons of F-35A, we’d upgrade all our Typhoons with the new ECRS2 AESA and so on. We’d keep the Hercs, we’d look at more A400Ms and we’d be buying up cheap Trent-powered second hand A330-200s for a cargo conversion to take the pressure off Globemaster, A400m and Voyager fleets to move palletised cargo and passengers around. We’d have replaced Puma a long time ago with some new Blackhawks in a worthwhile number. We’d have more Chinooks and we’d have Apache E in service already. Strategic and rotary wing airlift is one of our core strengths and should be somewhere we spend money to expand not reduce capability – it goes right to the heart of how our military is deployed, globally. Regrettably, there isn’t the budget to acquire or operate these platforms and a lack of political will to change that.
Three E-7s are purely a placeholder to retain the capability. We all know it doesn’t really fulfil the role in broad terms, it just means we can contribute to NATO efforts rather than be able to control our own operations if needed. We need several more than we are getting to be able to do all we could or would need to do with them. Arguably, they are more important now than they were in the days of Sentry because of the way EW has changed and become more important in the way air confrontations are fought. The Americans are using their F-35s in a sort of “Wedgetail lite” function – using its stealth and sensors and its advanced datalinking to quarterback things on a tactical level and it could be that we are thinking about doing something similar with ours, but there is no substitute for a whacking great gallium nitride array aloft with millions and millions of watts of energy behind it and it is important to understand that, wonderful platform that it is, the F-35 is what it is and isn’t what it isn’t.
So really it comes down to your strategic ambitions. If your ambitions are limited to contributing to an established NATO capability and not really having any realistic ability to do anything on your own, e.g.: Sierra Leone, Falklands etc, then three E7s are probably okay. Not great but not too bad. If you want to independently project power globally and not have to rely on NATO or other allies, then three Wedgetails are pretty much a non-entity.
What I see is a lack of joined up thinking from the MoD and how they intermesh with Government policy. On the one hand you have Astute, Strike Brigade with an emphasis on deployability by air anywhere instead of on heavy armour, and two aircraft carriers with flight decks full of F-35s which is the definition of independent, un-dependent power projection globally. But then we only buy three Wedgetails and make all sorts of cuts to assets like Hercules and the assault ships Albion and Bulwark etc which is the exact opposite of that line of thinking. So which are we? What is it we are supposed to be doing? Are we projecting power independently, or are we not in that game any more?
I don’t have the answers. The troubling thing to me is that I don’t think the MoD really know either.
Point out HOW MANY OTHER NATO PARTNERS HAVE E7s, why is the UK expected to fill the void and USAF has none. stupid thick Yank
The US are going to order many, many dozens of them. Turkey has them and so do the Koreans and Aussies. UK sure to buy a couple more in due course I’d imagine and likelihood is the French and NATO AWAC componant at Gelsenkirchen will re-equip with them fairly soon. I’d expect the Finns to be looking seriously at a couple as well.
Agreed, but that yank points the finger @ the UK. word from the RAF was 3 low/new airframes would give UK 2 aircraft on station at any one time for the next 3 years. with the USAF now agreeing to update the E7s. it was agreed 3 was basic until the updated USA version and its upgrades, made logical sense considering F35b had a more powerful radar than our E3s tired of being kicked by the old jello sucking Biden, and his immigrant family,