UK Defence Forum

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Maybe - but I would rather be covered for BMD during those 10 years than not.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

And maybe the Government should look to restoring our own capability to manufacture explosives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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.

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........

(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.

I thought RMMV (RHEINMETALL MAN MILITARY VEHICLES) had moved onto to the HX3 now