General UK Defence Discussion

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Lord Jim wrote: 07 Aug 2022, 02:18 If defence of the UK is paramount, finding money for the establishment of a viable ABM capability on land and at sea should be very near the top of the pile
Am I right in thinking a few months back that UK purchased from USA a land based radar suitable for ABM?
I am not sure what missile systems were intended to be used along with this radar.

For naval use, I know the intention was to upgrade the T45 destroyers with Aster Block 1 NT:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/type ... 00-uk-jobs

The timescale for the improvement to Sampson Radar and Sea Viper plus upgrade to Block 1 NT is unclear. Ideally I would hope that it happens simultaneously with PIP upgrade to minimise time out of water. But one has completed PIP and two more now undergoing PIP, so unclear if these upgrades for Block 1 NT will be ready in time. So unfortunately may be one of many "planned" upgrades.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Going all in with Sea Viper as well as purchasing a number of SAMP/T batteries would meet the UK's need for both defending the country and fores deployed further afield. There has been an offical requirement for a replacement for Bloodhound since that system retired and adding an ABM capability to the requirement is only logical.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Jdam »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 07 Aug 2022, 16:03
Lord Jim wrote: 07 Aug 2022, 02:18 If defence of the UK is paramount, finding money for the establishment of a viable ABM capability on land and at sea should be very near the top of the pile
Am I right in thinking a few months back that UK purchased from USA a land based radar suitable for ABM?
I am not sure what missile systems were intended to be used along with this radar.

For naval use, I know the intention was to upgrade the T45 destroyers with Aster Block 1 NT:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/type ... 00-uk-jobs

The timescale for the improvement to Sampson Radar and Sea Viper plus upgrade to Block 1 NT is unclear. Ideally I would hope that it happens simultaneously with PIP upgrade to minimise time out of water. But one has completed PIP and two more now undergoing PIP, so unclear if these upgrades for Block 1 NT will be ready in time. So unfortunately may be one of many "planned" upgrades.
You also have the update of 24 Sea Ceptor launchers, that may also impact the when the type 45 can be updated for ABM defence or doing both could well extend how long the ships are out of the water.
These users liked the author Jdam for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

It might be quicker to wait for the first T-83 to enter service to gain a ABM capability. If that vessel doesn't use Aster we would lose any commonality with its land based cousin. This is more important in my opinion as it can be networked seamlessly with our planed Sky Sabre Batteries, finally giving the UK a layered Ground Based Air Defence system only nearly half a century late.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Jdam »

Very true the Type 83 will not be that far away when the all the PIP's, Sea Ceptor and ABM/1NT missiles are added to the Type 45's. HMS Dauntless took 3 years just for the PIP, even if they do 2 at the same time and only take 2 years to do it, you are looking at 2028 till all are completed. Then what 10 years till the Type 83 comes around :eh:

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Jdam wrote: 10 Aug 2022, 20:03 Very true the Type 83 will not be that far away when the all the PIP's, Sea Ceptor and ABM/1NT missiles are added to the Type 45's. HMS Dauntless took 3 years just for the PIP, even if they do 2 at the same time and only take 2 years to do it, you are looking at 2028 till all are completed. Then what 10 years till the Type 83 comes around :eh:
Maybe - but I would rather be covered for BMD during those 10 years than not.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

Rather: In today’s world (and that of tomorrow) it is looking ever more likely that BMD for our CSGs will be an essential component. If we had it on the T45s from today, it would not be a day too soon. :mrgreen:
These users liked the author Scimitar54 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

With all this emphasis on seabed mapping seems strange to scrap HMS echo just last month….

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... er-threats

The UK’s position as a world-leading maritime nation is secured by a new strategy that will enhance capabilities in technology, innovation and cyber security.

Unveiling the 5-year strategy, the Secretary of State for Transport has today (Monday 15 August 2022) set out the guiding principles for the UK government’s approach to managing threats and risks at home and around the world, including leveraging the UK’s world-leading seabed mapping community and tackling illegal fishing and polluting activities at sea.

The new strategy redefines maritime security as upholding laws, regulations and norms to deliver a free, fair and open maritime domain. With this new approach, the government rightly recognises any illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and environmental damage to our seas as a maritime security concern.

In addition, to enhance the UK’s maritime security knowledge, the government has established the UK Centre for Seabed Mapping (UK CSM), which seeks to enable the UK’s world-leading seabed mapping sector to collaborate to collect more and better data.

Seabed mapping provides the foundation dataset that underpins almost every sector in the maritime domain, including maritime trade, environmental and resource management, shipping operations and national security and infrastructure within the industry.

Working with industry and academia, Secretaries of State from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Department for Transport (DfT), the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) will focus on 5 strategic objectives:

Protecting our homeland: delivering the world’s most effective maritime security framework for our borders, ports and infrastructure.

Responding to threats: taking a whole system approach to bring world-leading capabilities and expertise to bear to respond to new, emerging threats.

Ensuring prosperity: ensuring the security of international shipping, the unimpeded transmission of goods, information and energy to support continued global development and our economic prosperity.

Championing values: championing global maritime security underpinned by freedom of navigation and the international order.

Supporting a secure, resilient ocean: tackling security threats and breaches of regulations that impact on a clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically-diverse maritime environment.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

SW1 wrote: 15 Aug 2022, 17:54 With all this emphasis on seabed mapping seems strange to scrap HMS echo just last month….

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... er-threats

The UK’s position as a world-leading maritime nation is secured by a new strategy that will enhance capabilities in technology, innovation and cyber security.

Unveiling the 5-year strategy, the Secretary of State for Transport has today (Monday 15 August 2022) set out the guiding principles for the UK government’s approach to managing threats and risks at home and around the world, including leveraging the UK’s world-leading seabed mapping community and tackling illegal fishing and polluting activities at sea.

The new strategy redefines maritime security as upholding laws, regulations and norms to deliver a free, fair and open maritime domain. With this new approach, the government rightly recognises any illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and environmental damage to our seas as a maritime security concern.

In addition, to enhance the UK’s maritime security knowledge, the government has established the UK Centre for Seabed Mapping (UK CSM), which seeks to enable the UK’s world-leading seabed mapping sector to collaborate to collect more and better data.

Seabed mapping provides the foundation dataset that underpins almost every sector in the maritime domain, including maritime trade, environmental and resource management, shipping operations and national security and infrastructure within the industry.

Working with industry and academia, Secretaries of State from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Department for Transport (DfT), the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) will focus on 5 strategic objectives:

Protecting our homeland: delivering the world’s most effective maritime security framework for our borders, ports and infrastructure.

Responding to threats: taking a whole system approach to bring world-leading capabilities and expertise to bear to respond to new, emerging threats.

Ensuring prosperity: ensuring the security of international shipping, the unimpeded transmission of goods, information and energy to support continued global development and our economic prosperity.

Championing values: championing global maritime security underpinned by freedom of navigation and the international order.

Supporting a secure, resilient ocean: tackling security threats and breaches of regulations that impact on a clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically-diverse maritime environment.
It also part of the strategy to give all this to a Private company that minsters have shares and interests in

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by inch »

Think what we are world leading mostly is saying this or that piece of new equipment is world leading...lol, everything that we get equipment wise most other countries already have and we just get it to catch up to our peers ,but mostly late to the party and in total inadequate numbers that wouldn't make a shite of difference in a real war if we were backs to the wall ,even most half arsed countries would put the MoD to shame procurement and execution.but hey by all means keep on bluffing the world leading mantra ,sure lots are taken it

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

I don’t believe that it is just to hand it over to suit shares in a company.

If seabed survey is critical and I think it is something a lot of others prize then if it were me I’d of kept echo, scrapped the batch 1 rivers replaced them with the two rivers sent to the pacific and if the RN/gov wanting something out there I’d of sent echo permanently out there. Been much more useful to regional allies.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Jdam »

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... n-arsenals
While decades-old problems will not be solved overnight, the Navy must immediately follow the Army’s example and revitalize its sole remaining arsenal at NSWC IHD and re-establish its ability to meet the surge manufacturing requirements for mobilization and munitions replenishment.
If the Americans are having issues with weapons stockpiles there is maybe an argument for us to put some money aside for getting more UK made weapons on our platforms, Brimstone on Apaches, Sting Ray for our P-8s, ect
These users liked the author Jdam for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

And maybe the Government should look to restoring our own capability to manufacture explosives.
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post (total 2):
Repulsewargame_insomniac
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

According to the Express. Liz Truss is promising a review of the Integrated Review, in light of the changing situation and 3% of GDP for defence by 2030.

Safely on the other side of an election that they could well lose, so I guess we'll see
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
wargame_insomniac
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lets hope China and Russia can wait until 2040 to give us a some hope ah

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

I would rather hope that the UK GDP grows by 2-300% by 2030! (if only). :lol:

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by jonas »

From famine to feast, can we actually even hope this will happen ?

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/p ... nce-budget

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

You of thought that the people who soapboxes for 2% and seen the reality would really have learned there lesson and stop wittering on about an arbitrary percentages as 2 sec sound bite headline.

What do u want them to do(scale), where and for how long. That’s it
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
mrclark303

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by mrclark303 »

Good point SW1, that's the rub in a nutshell I suppose.

What we actually need is a new thorough SDSR, as the previous one is totally obsolete and taken over by world events.

As you rightly say, it has to be based on what we 'actually' require our armed services to do.

If we expect to be able to unilaterally deploy a serious (and maintain) a cross service task group thousands of miles away from the UK, or continue in international partnership operations.

Both require a different force makeup and potentially radically, a different funding model.

So, start with a proper 'needs led' review, then base the funding on that.

I fear an arbitrary 3% will lead to money being blown on more poorly defined, derived and led projects like the original AH64D procurement, Ajax or the forthcoming money pit Puma replacement ....

We all know the vastly cheaper, utterly battle proven and tough S70 option won't be taken up and the smart money will go the Leonardo offering, that will inevitably cost two or three times as much!

After all, It's vitality important to keep a run down, wholly Italian owned factory, to assemble an Italian designed composite helicopter, that isn't able to withstand light small arms fire without being grounded for specialist repairs!

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by inch »

Aye first thing they should do if get 3% budget is make someone who knows what they are doing from start to finish of a program who would be accountable,a budget that is enough for start to Finnish of a program,ARMY top brass who can't keep adding new things to a program half way thru, industry given full production runs ,not bits and pieces making it more expensive stop start ,that's before anything happens with actually spending any new budget

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by inch »

Adding to that just thought, would try make cross party decisions on programs that wouldn't be cut altogether,slashed budget or numbers etc ,so would be all agreed no matter who got into power so a 10/15yr development/build program wouldn't be screwed about with by MPs of different party's ,for the total adequate defence of the nation should be the only criteria

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SW1 »

It is as if the only issue is procurement. If there’s any uplift at all it’s needs spending on resilience of infrastructure, manpower, and stock holdings, training and exercises.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
mrclark303Lord Jim

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 03 Sep 2022, 17:49 It is as if the only issue is procurement. If there’s any uplift at all it’s needs spending on resilience of infrastructure, manpower, and stock holdings, training and exercises.
Spot on........

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by SKB »


(Forces News) 6th October 2022
Could this be the British Army's next truck? Forces News has taken a look at the latest MAN Supply Vehicle, the HX2 - thousands of the earlier HX1 version are currently in service with the British Army.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: General UK Defence Discussion

Post by tomuk »

I thought RMMV (RHEINMETALL MAN MILITARY VEHICLES) had moved onto to the HX3 now
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Little J

Post Reply