UK Defence Forum

Moved from another thread:

A couple of weeks old, but a good illustration of the pain ahead with a gap of around £8bn per annum appearing by 2024 from what could have been projected versus a possible austerity scenario.

https://www.army-technology.com/comment ... ce-budget/

What does this mean for the RN?

- Cancellation of CASD?, instead more Astute+s with VLS capable of firing tactical nukes
- Early cutting of the 5 GP T23s?, to be replaced by slightly pimped B2 Rivers
- Cutting the T26 numbers?, to be replaced by a few more T31s
- No more F35Bs beyond 48?, to be replaced by investment in future carrier based UAV?

Repulse wrote:more Astute+s with VLS capable of firing tactical nukes

would think that the danger of a launch being interpreted as a (false) positive, of it actually carrying a nuke, might lead to escalation... not necessarily by the targeted party, but its ally/ backer.

There is a brand new listing listing and analysis of past positive signals by the Carnegieendowment.org (9 April, 2020) which runs as follows
" the United States alerted its nuclear forces in 1960, 1962, and 1973, the Soviet Union probably either responded in kind or made preparations to do so.18 Similarly, in October 1969, Chinese nuclear forces were placed on alert in response to Soviet nuclear threats that led Beijing to believe a nuclear attack was imminent. Meanwhile, in August 1978, the alert level of forces at some U.S. Strategic Command bases was raised after two Soviet SSBNs approached the U.S. coast.19

In fact, the 1973 incident was part of an escalation spiral that was initially catalyzed by a false positive.20 The U.S. alert took place on October 24, 1973, in the final days of the Yom Kippur War between Israel and a coalition of Arab states. Today, this alert is usually explained as a warning to Moscow against sending troops to Egypt."
- this incident is ranked as the one bringing the world closest to an actual nuclear launch
- the US nuclear alert (vividly described in the German edition of Kissinger's memoirs, a deal he did privately, before the State Dept erased the whole story from other editions) led the Soviets conclude that the US was preparing to attack as
a) they had no intention to send combat troops, nor
b) were they planning to and had not sent nukes to Egypt, even though a radiation reading from a freighter bound for Egypt said so - the meter used by US Intelligence was faulty

So, with a rather wordy rationale I would conclude that the proposal for a wrong place to spend money. Btw, the paper commissioned by the Coalition Gvmnt as part of the road towards the decision of Trident renewal concluded as well that the danger of a false positive interpretation leading to unintended escalation was not a risk worth taking

BTW, a totting up of the monies (UK's included under its own entry) diverted to Covid response can be found here: https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-c ... COVID-19#F
- it is also being continuously updated, which saves a lot of trouble

What in general will be interesting in the reaction I think there will possibly be a renewed focus or areas perhaps less defined of late. If u consider reports from France and the US essentially two US and the French carrier group is out of action due to a virus is there lessons there?

We’ve also seen french and US governments interrupted supply chains abruptly because of domestic need with little regard to anyone. Does that have implications for assumed stock levels or where equipment is sourced from?

We’ve seen yet against where the traditional military support arms have significant dual use potential will that see a funding move from more fighter part to less fighty parts. Will the requirement for military support to civil powers be re-examined to options here either should it continue if there’s cuts or is there civil resilience under investment or non military services better suited.

Could the purchase of military equipment be seen as a way to boast regional economies as we seen with France after the 2008 economic crisis with the LHD mistral.

A lot of 2nd hand a/c likely to be available at considerably lower prices that a last month. Also air tankers spare a/c maybe unused, contenders to convert to boom operations and perhaps add a airborne battle management and communication area in a region of the cabin say usually the first/business area on a civil plane. Take the 5 on strength in this configuration and offer to nato as a contribution to the tanker/support area.


ACC

Not sure that argument holds as much water anymore now that conventional armed ballistic missiles are becoming a thing.

Repulse wrote:- No more F35Bs beyond 48?, to be replaced by investment in future carrier based UAV?

As there is no order for any f35 beyond the 48 in the equipment plan you can’t claim any credit for saying you will not order any more.

SW1 wrote:ACC

Not sure that argument holds as much water anymore now that conventional armed ballistic missiles are becoming a thing.

Agree, just look at what Russia is up to with things like the SSC-X-9 Skyfall and the Americans to.

I honestly believe that limited nuclear conflict is possible with cruise missiles, whereas those left with City killing ICBMs will be too scared to use due to civilian casualties.

SW1 wrote:ACC

Not sure that argument holds as much water anymore now that conventional armed ballistic missiles are becoming a thing.

You are absolutely right, but that is more on land (where the launcher movements can be better tracked and intentions/ possible uses anticipated)... I was going to add "and howabout the death of INF; how will that change matters?" to the end.

BUT submarine (RN thread) launches are a bit of a different thing as they can come, literally, out of the blue and thereby the interpretations may be done in great haste (thus having great potential for causing an inadvertent escalation spiral).

SW1, good points on supply chains and availability, I’ve broadened the topic title.

Repulse wrote:the SSC-X-9 Skyfall

is that NATO humour? From Russia with Love c'ed

My view, maybe:
PoW being mothballed and used like Albion/Bulwark.
One Bay retired or sold.
T23 GP retired early.
One T45 not being reengined and mothballed.
Another Hunt/Sandown being retired.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

SW1 wrote:ACC

Not sure that argument holds as much water anymore now that conventional armed ballistic missiles are becoming a thing.

You are absolutely right, but that is more on land (where the launcher movements can be better tracked and intentions/ possible uses anticipated)... I was going to add "and howabout the death of INF; how will that change matters?" to the end.

BUT submarine (RN thread) launches are a bit of a different thing as they can come, literally, out of the blue and thereby the interpretations may be done in great haste (thus having great potential for causing an inadvertent escalation spiral).

But are we not the only member of the nuclear club to retain just a single leg on the triad.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:You are absolutely right, but that is more on land

Just read up on the Russian Kalibr and the number of platforms capable of firing it, plus more on the way.

As ever I suspect it all depends if the economy takes a major hit long term, since borrowing is so cheap at the moment, if it doesn't get better long term I think that is when the crap is going to happen,

Im sure the politicians won't want to say to our Potential enemys that the uk is weak, I think as suggested though that the T23gp maybe retired early & save costs on the refurbs aswell, but then would that lead to job losses?

I could also see a Albion being put on the market as one is mothballed anyways, but it would be well cheap for the new owner !!!

Given how cheap Ocean was when sold after just coming out of refit, the reserve Albion could go for far less than £50M.

We should look at this thru a set strategic aim of exactly what defence means and what we are trying to achieve. What stays goes or increases should be framed against that outcome rather than cap badge/ship badge/Sqn protectionism.


As I’ve mentioned before the defence and security of the UK is largely based on what happens around the Atlantic basin north and south and the european region. That is the priority.

SW1 wrote:As I’ve mentioned before the defence and security of the UK is largely based on what happens around the Atlantic basin north and south and the european region

I would say you are right that this will be the focus of our funds, I just can’t help but think the government will want to retain its global credentials via the two CSGs and a (cheaper) element of forward presence through “light frigates” and littoral platforms based on commercial designs - even if it’s to the detriment of the North Atlantic capability.

SW1 wrote:We should look at this thru a set strategic aim of exactly what defence means and what we are trying to achieve. What stays goes or increases should be framed against that outcome rather than cap badge/ship badge/Sqn protectionism.


As I’ve mentioned before the defence and security of the UK is largely based on what happens around the Atlantic basin north and south and the european region. That is the priority.

Ha ha ha and where exactly did this virus start???

Ron5 wrote:

SW1 wrote:We should look at this thru a set strategic aim of exactly what defence means and what we are trying to achieve. What stays goes or increases should be framed against that outcome rather than cap badge/ship badge/Sqn protectionism.


As I’ve mentioned before the defence and security of the UK is largely based on what happens around the Atlantic basin north and south and the european region. That is the priority.

Ha ha ha and where exactly did this virus start???

In a Bat

One thing is clear, the reliance of uninterrupted cross border just-in-time supply needs a review. The ability to close borders quickly and have a level of stockpiles to manage disruption will hit all areas including the RN - this will cost money.

FFS, we dont know! Currently there are people dying globally in numbers we haven't seen since WW2. Simply put this is a global paradigm. Wasting electrons on endless debate is doing fuck all except depressing people. How about you go and do something useful.

Fact: Covid-19 is a global emergency
Fact: It is affecting all countries and militaries and will affect all procurement everywhere
Fact: economies are for once reconfiguring (certainly the UK has rediscovered fast fabrication and plasticity)
Fact: global supply chains are now pivoting to domestic, given that we are 5/6th largest economy some of that is coming home.
Fact: as a service sector leader one of the few things that can't be rapidly replicated is this area of industry, we are relatively well placed to come through this and actually make some money; the same cannot be said of China and to a lesser extent some of the emerging countries.
Reasoned speculation: this will affect the taxation schemes in western nations with more being asked of the larger corporations who trade in Tech and global sales corporates will forced to pay more. Borrowing is cheap and the chancellor has already said the government is looking at this as a national crisis so will take a lot longer to downpay and normal fiscal rules will not apply. All countries are equally affected. Also some countries who are dependant on oil or mass production (China/Russia) may have to consider aggressive action to sustain not their economies but the political regimes from their own populations. This may indeed confirm military necessity.

Like most who have been and done I am a fully paid up member of'Whores not wars' and would love to live in world where there is no need for armed forces and conflict but sadly this is not reality. When we are through this then perhaps a reasoned debate rather than pointless speculation would be more appropriate.

And for those who asked abut me doing something: currently working with 50% of my staff furloughed providing emergency vet cover and organising this- www.vetsfornhs.co.uk. Over to you (and feel free to donate!)

No one has any real idea how this will play out. We won't know the economic costs for some time yet, we've no idea when normal will return. Without that we can't start to plan.
Although it's reasonable to suggest that the MoD's financial woes won't be at the top of the UK voters list of priorities in the next couple of years.

@ jimthelad

Firstly I will say by adding such a long rant you adding to the every thing you are ranting at so get off your F'in high horse and well done you furloughing 50% of your staff sounds like you are doing alright. Most people are doing as they are asked and staying home as they have been Furloughed or are working from home. Me I am doing what I can for my small village and my partner has made 40 face masks plus right now I am using this space to escape for a few moments the fact that Bother is on the NHS front line and mother is dying (Not from covid-19) and I can't get to her due to this shit.

The RN and the forces as a whole will need to take a back seat for a while so using what we have to its best will be the order of the day (again). things that may work short term

1 ) fit 3 of the B2 Rivers with 1 x 40mm , 2 x 20mm and 2 x 12.7 HMG's and forward deploy them
2 ) cutting 2 x T-23 GP's and man the remaining 11
3) finding the manning for both Wave class and deploy both EoS

I agree rightly, Defence will be the last thing people will worry about now and after this finishes. However, after great events such as this it is likely that the world order will shift and a conflict of some kind will follow. I personally think they’ll be heightened tensions with Russia, and in the Middle East, but the flash point is likely to be in the East. Can’t see the UK getting involved unless one of the FPDA countries is at direct threat.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Moved into General Discussion since this section is strictly for equipment.

jimthelad wrote:Fact: as a service sector leader one of the few things that can't be rapidly replicated is this area of industry, we are relatively well placed to come through this and actually make some money; the same cannot be said of China and to a lesser extent some of the emerging countries.
Reasoned speculation: this will affect the taxation schemes in western nations with more being asked of the larger corporations who trade in Tech and global sales corporates will forced to pay more. Borrowing is cheap and the chancellor has already said the government is looking at this as a national crisis so will take a lot longer to downpay

That is all very solid , but going back to the 4 facts you listed before the above last one, the situation might look a bit different. Consider this, from Reuters Breakingviews dated 2 April:
"For years, Beijing has been pursuing a 1930s-style autarky, tying up supplies of commodities from various countries, such as Venezuela, with loans from the China Development Bank. More recently, Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative has increased its number of client states. At the same time, the People’s Republic has reduced the share of foreign components in domestic manufacturing. China may unwittingly have provided the catalyst for this crisis, but if globalisation fails it will enjoy its head start."
So, as a strategy that is a valid outline, but must be seen against the background that few states are as reliant on exporting (the markets being there and not blocking Chinese exports) as the PRC. Should growth fail, so might the Party's monopolistic grip on power... and we might see corporatism equal to what happened in a leading European state in the run-up to WW2 happening, but the cherry of the cake - this time around - would be technologically the most advanced surveillance state backing that up and keeping any dissenting voices down
... the last sentence takes us back to what kind of scenarios the SDSR that was just about to take off should consider The RN might fit in somewhere there, once the "right answer" has been found