Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UK to increase Defence Spending by largest since Cold War.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    The Greeks are going for US/French mix, I see little chance of them going for a Type-31 as well.
    True, but given the US is trying to sell them LCS’s, anything is better than that option. My point however is if true it gives us an idea of the price tag of the 31 without being capped by the U.K.

    Comment


    • #32
      This is a good article from STRN -

      https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/rea...igate-concept/
      'History is a vast early warning system'. Norman Cousins

      Comment


      • #33
        The increase in spending is being accomplished by slashing the Army - presumably in part to pay for the Carriers and F-35's.

        The capability of the BA now appears to be "to take and hold a small town" (to quote the article).

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56007073

        Does size matter for Britain's shrinking Army?
        By Jonathan Beale
        Defence correspondent, BBC News

        The British army is already the smallest it's been in 400 years. And it's about to get even smaller.
        A cut in the number of troops is expected in a defence review, due to be published next month.
        Options include losing up to 10,000 soldiers from the regular Army's notional strength of 82,000 in order to help fund its modernisation.
        Ministers have made clear there will still have to be painful decisions for the armed forces, despite the extra £16.5bn given to the Ministry of Defence over the next four years.
        A senior Army officer has told the BBC that technology will allow the Army to become "leaner and more agile".
        But it comes amid warnings that the Army is already too small, and that more cuts will worry allies and limit its ability to fight.

        Modernisation
        Over the past year the Army has been preparing for a radical transformation.
        It wants to embrace new technologies - from drones and robots to artificial intelligence.
        Brig John Clark, the head of Army strategy, insists no decision on troop numbers has yet been made.
        But he says by harnessing technology "you're able to achieve the same effect with fewer people".
        However, Jack Watling, of London's Royal United Services Institute warns of "the excitement of new capabilities coming at the expense of traditional hard military power".
        Remember, the majority of soldiers in a modern army are there to support and sustain a fighting force.
        The tip of the spear, the combat element, is often about a third of an army's total strength.

        The rumours in Whitehall suggest the Army will be losing several infantry battalions, part of the fighting force.
        Mr Watling says an army of just 72,000 should still be able to take and hold "a small town", bearing in mind the British army struggled to secure the Iraqi city of Basra, when it was 100,000 strong.
        Forward presence
        It might appear to be a contradiction, but the Army believes even if it's smaller, it can still have a bigger presence around the world.
        It's embraced the government's mantra of "global Britain".
        For the Army it'll mean operating from a number of "global hubs" in parts of the world where it already has a presence - such as Kenya, Oman and Brunei.
        Brig Clark says: "We see those as launchpads through which we can routinely send more of the British army out to train, develop and demonstrate."
        He says by being forward-deployed the Army will be able to respond and manage threats "more rapidly and decisively".
        He describes it as prevention rather than cure.
        It signals a shift in the way the Army wants to operate.
        Brig Clark talks of "smaller teams that can go out there and compete beneath the threshold of conflict" - the so-called "grey zone" where militaries operate discreetly in the blurred lines between war and peace.
        Ben Barry, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), said: "I see a clear aspiration to do more with the Army further away, but forces cannot be everywhere at once."
        Full-time army personnel has fallen steadily over the past decade
        Too small to fight a major war?
        There are certainly questions as to whether a smaller army, spread around the world, will be able to meet its existing commitments to Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
        In theory, the UK can deploy a war fighting division to defend Europe.
        Mr Watling of Rusi says among the components of a division would be around 200 main battle tanks.
        The British army is likely to have half that number.
        Mr Barry, of the IISS, says allies in eastern Europe are left wondering whether the British army of the future will be sending "armour and infantry or aggressive algorithms" to help defend them.
        The Army's plans do include updating increasingly obsolete armoured vehicles and the addition of more potent long-range artillery systems.
        Brig Clark insists the Army will still be able to field a warfighting division.
        But the Army's definition of a division appears to be changing.
        Does size matter?
        The UK already has one of the smallest armies of any major European nation.
        And that worries its closest military ally, the United States.
        US General Mark Milley's plea to the British army at a London conference just a few years ago was that "you don't get any smaller".
        Kim Darroch, the former British ambassador to Washington, recently said the message from the Pentagon was "…do not go down any further and expect to retain your current credibility".
        The truth is that the British Army's credibility had already been damaged in the eyes of the US.
        America had to come to the rescue of the British army in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Mr Barry and Mr Watling also question whether an army of 72,000 could do another Helmand - a long, enduring campaign.
        Brig Clark insists it could.
        But the British army has a recent history of biting off more
        'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
        'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
        Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
        He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
        http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

        Comment


        • #34
          Word is a few of the Type 23 will be put out for disposal before time too, even though Argyll was to go in 2023, with one a year after that. Seems now first four will go together.
          German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
          German 2: Private? I am a general!
          German 1: That is the bad news.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
            Word is a few of the Type 23 will be put out for disposal before time too, even though Argyll was to go in 2023, with one a year after that. Seems now first four will go together.
            Ah, it's that time again, where the leaks and counter leaks start...Given the reports that the Army is going to face more cuts (from manpower to stopping the Warrior upgrade) it's not surprising.

            Comment


            • #36
              I recommend these books as they give an insight into how these thinks work

              https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mission-Imp.../dp/1912440040

              https://www.amazon.co.uk/Changing-Gu...he+chan&sr=8-1

              Comment


              • #37
                So tomorrow the Review will start coming out, the cuts seems well flagged, all the C130's and Tranche 1 Typhoons are going, the Army is losing 10K all the Warriors and another 70 Challenger 2s, the RN is to lose at least 2 Type 23's, and all the MCMV's. For both the RN and RAF the F35 order seems to be being capped at 48, so with training and maintenance it seems hard to see how the QE's can have a full airwing without support from other 35b users.
                Also reports that the SLBM warheads are to be increased to over 200 warheads...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Here it is
                  Global Britain in a Competitive Age, the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, describes the government’s vision for the UK’s role in the world over the next decade and the action we will take to 2025.
                  Last edited by apc; 16 March 2021, 13:08.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by apc View Post
                    Here it is
                    Looks like buzzword bingo there.
                    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                    German 2: Private? I am a general!
                    German 1: That is the bad news.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Ya i tried reading it but brain shut down, will try again later

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                        the RN is to lose at least 2 Type 23's, and all the MCMV's. ..
                        I'd bet the British Military Attache will soon be sounding us out on picking up a couple as CPV replacements.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          And maybe the C130s for our transport needs and the typhoons for QRA

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Tempest View Post

                            I'd bet the British Military Attache will soon be sounding us out on picking up a couple as CPV replacements.
                            They can keep them. Frigates on their last legs, CODLAG power, something we have no experience of, with an ageing powerplant that spares are scarce for (Typical RR Spey made sense when T22 were about they could swap engines around, but T45 doesn't use them T26 wont and neither will T31 or 32). MCMVs are of a bygone age too, need to move the same way as NL and Belgium, mother ship for USVs. No doubt the Saudis or Estonians will snap them up, as they already use a few ex RN MCMVs. No idea who will want the hunts though. They were costly to build at the time, and since the sweeping gear was removed, became very costly OPVs. The Greeks might want one to replace their one that was sliced in two by a container ship though. The newest in over 35 years old though they all got new engines (Got rid of the Deltics)and a fantastic minehunting sonar in 2018.
                            German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                            German 2: Private? I am a general!
                            German 1: That is the bad news.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by apc View Post
                              And maybe the C130s for our transport needs and the typhoons for QRA
                              Yeah we'll take them, no problem. We can park them in Knock next to the A380s being scrapped.
                              German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
                              German 2: Private? I am a general!
                              German 1: That is the bad news.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                2 interesting papers from the review

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X