UK Defence Forum

Posted: **07 Feb 2023, 18:29**

After all is said and done in Ukraine it will likely take Russia at least a decade to rebuild their military such that it would again constitute a serious conventional threat. For sure we shouldn't take our eyes from them for even a moment due to their ability / desire to engage in destabilising 'hybrid' style activities but as a conventional military threat they are done for a while.

China on the other hand will spend the next decade (and the one after that) becoming an ever more serious conventional threat while also engaging more and more in the kind of destabilising 'hybrid' activity that Russia will be limited to.

And then of course the Middle East will continue to be the Middle East; throwing all manner of challenges both predictable and from left field.

The pivot makes strategic sense if we can find the money to do it.

Posted: **07 Feb 2023, 18:39**

I think Russia as a conventional threat to NATO is hugely diminished and will take significant time to recover. We done need to ensure we ensure the nato border is full reinforced and defended this will require a deployment into the Baltic for the duration. I think that should be a boxer equipped battle group with surface to air and surface missile support but others may have different opinions.

I am concerns about irregular Russian and in particular Chinese forces backed by state funds destabilising or manipulating countries in Africa, south and Central America with them being turned against western ideas and leading to issues in our traditional and valued trading routes. This is something we need to counter and will require much more than just military statecraft.

Posted: **07 Feb 2023, 18:41**

SW1 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2023, 18:27
Tempest414 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2023, 17:44 I agree in the most part but still feel we will need 4 T-31's and 2 OPV's EoS these would for the most part work in the Indian Ocean and Gulf operating off the East of Africa
Almost like a reconstitution of the East Indies station.. Base 4 type 31 out off Diego Garcia and allow them conduct martime security in the trade routes along east africa and the Arabian Sea up into the Red Sea.

We don’t need the opvs in that region we do need a tanker,

I could go with a tanker in the rejoin but I would keep the OPV's just me

Posted: **07 Feb 2023, 19:42**

OPVs can operate in shallower waters and operate/visit more ports. A Tanker is only required if it’s there to do something useful. Seeing the CSGs come with their own, then unless it’s part of an allied task group I fail to see what the point is.

Posted: **07 Feb 2023, 22:19**

SW1 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2023, 18:27
Tempest414 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2023, 17:44 I agree in the most part but still feel we will need 4 T-31's and 2 OPV's EoS these would for the most part work in the Indian Ocean and Gulf operating off the East of Africa
Almost like a reconstitution of the East Indies station.. Base 4 type 31 out off Diego Garcia and allow them conduct martime security in the trade routes along east africa and the Arabian Sea up into the Red Sea.

We don’t need the opvs in that region we do need a tanker,

Personally I think a mixture of T31 and Rb2 is what's needed.

Spey and Tamar have been doing a great job (re)building relations with various navies in Indo Pacific. We could do with similar for Africa, south & central America. So I would keep one of them in eastern Pacific, whilst the other maybe to East Africa.

I thik the first T31 would be needed to replace T23 GP Frigate in Persian Gulf, based in Bahrain. Then next might be in Gulf of Aden / Red Sea, based out of Oman. I would prefer to keep the Rb2 well away from the East China Sea, so I would like a 3rd T31 in Singapore / Brunei. After that maybe Med and South Atlantic, taking over from RB2 that are currently there.

I am happy with Rb2 showing the flag and exercising soft power, but I want T31 to be proper warships, especially if uparmed as discused in detail many times on the Escort thread, so no point going into detail again.

Agreed would need a tanker in the Indo Pacific in case of long mission, but generally think we have got a network of a few RN bases as mentioned.

Posted: **07 Feb 2023, 23:12**

SW1 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2023, 18:27
Tempest414 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2023, 17:44 I agree in the most part but still feel we will need 4 T-31's and 2 OPV's EoS these would for the most part work in the Indian Ocean and Gulf operating off the East of Africa
Almost like a reconstitution of the East Indies station.. Base 4 type 31 out off Diego Garcia and allow them conduct martime security in the trade routes along east africa and the Arabian Sea up into the Red Sea.

We don’t need the opvs in that region we do need a tanker,

Well there a two Waves laid up.

Posted: **08 Feb 2023, 09:54**

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑07 Feb 2023, 22:19
SW1 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2023, 18:27
Tempest414 wrote: ↑07 Feb 2023, 17:44 I agree in the most part but still feel we will need 4 T-31's and 2 OPV's EoS these would for the most part work in the Indian Ocean and Gulf operating off the East of Africa
Almost like a reconstitution of the East Indies station.. Base 4 type 31 out off Diego Garcia and allow them conduct martime security in the trade routes along east africa and the Arabian Sea up into the Red Sea.

We don’t need the opvs in that region we do need a tanker,
Personally I think a mixture of T31 and Rb2 is what's needed.

Spey and Tamar have been doing a great job (re)building relations with various navies in Indo Pacific. We could do with similar for Africa, south & central America. So I would keep one of them in eastern Pacific, whilst the other maybe to East Africa.

I thik the first T31 would be needed to replace T23 GP Frigate in Persian Gulf, based in Bahrain. Then next might be in Gulf of Aden / Red Sea, based out of Oman. I would prefer to keep the Rb2 well away from the East China Sea, so I would like a 3rd T31 in Singapore / Brunei. After that maybe Med and South Atlantic, taking over from RB2 that are currently there.

I am happy with Rb2 showing the flag and exercising soft power, but I want T31 to be proper warships, especially if uparmed as discused in detail many times on the Escort thread, so no point going into detail again.

Agreed would need a tanker in the Indo Pacific in case of long mission, but generally think we have got a network of a few RN bases as mentioned.

My point is I would like to see 8 Type 31's plus keep 8 OPV's with a view to having 4 x T-31's plus 6 x OPV's in the Atlantic/ Med and then 4 x T-31's and 2 OPV's plus a Tanker in the Indian Ocean/ Gulf. I would then set up 3 stations

East African station ) covering the East of Africa , Gulf and form time to time popping into the Pacific with 4 x T-31,s , 2 x OPV's plus a tanker

North Atlantic station) covering the home fleet , Caribbean and Med with 2 x T-31's and 4 x OPV's

South Atlantic station) covering West Africa and South America with 2 x T-31's , 2 x OPV's plus a Tanker

Posted: **13 Feb 2023, 22:58**

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d7a6 ... 93405ac7e1

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 10:14**

Interesting but a bit over egged as 3 time last year we had 3 x re-enforced Battalion battle groups deployed in Europe and at the same time we had a Battalion battle group in Cyprus

What we need to do now is stand up a Armoured Brigade and hold it at readiness for a year no matter what NATO want but when NATO ask for troops else where we say sorry we are holding a Armoured Brigade plus a Air assault BBG at high readiness

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 10:39**

SW1 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2023, 22:58 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d7a6 ... 93405ac7e1

While a little 'basic' in its analysis, the general theme is correct, 30 years of hollowing out, compounded with terrible procurement decisions that were more about placating the electorate and winning another 5 years than 'actually' providing the equipment needed ...

We've been caught with our trousers down now and still no pledge for serious extra money or expedite off the shelf procurement were possible.

Labour bitch and moan about it, but refuse to commit to extra defence spending....

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 11:16**

mrclark303 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 10:39
SW1 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2023, 22:58 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d7a6 ... 93405ac7e1
While a little 'basic' in its analysis, the general theme is correct, 30 years of hollowing out, compounded with terrible procurement decisions that were more about placating the electorate and winning another 5 years than 'actually' providing the equipment needed ...

We've been caught with our trousers down now and still no pledge for serious extra money or expedite off the shelf procurement were possible.

Labour bitch and moan about it, but refuse to commit to extra defence spending....

I don’t think more cash solves the problem tbh. There is no guarantee it won’t be further wasted until there is a clear priority laid out that is measured against and a clear capital allocation decision to deliver it and not with mythical efficiency savings. If that means sacred cows need chopped so be it.

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 12:27**

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 11:16
mrclark303 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 10:39
SW1 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2023, 22:58 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d7a6 ... 93405ac7e1
While a little 'basic' in its analysis, the general theme is correct, 30 years of hollowing out, compounded with terrible procurement decisions that were more about placating the electorate and winning another 5 years than 'actually' providing the equipment needed ...

We've been caught with our trousers down now and still no pledge for serious extra money or expedite off the shelf procurement were possible.

Labour bitch and moan about it, but refuse to commit to extra defence spending....
I don’t think more cash solves the problem tbh. There is no guarantee it won’t be further wasted until there is a clear priority laid out that is measured against and a clear capital allocation decision to deliver it and not with mythical efficiency savings. If that means sacred cows need chopped so be it.

Agree - more money immediately wont work until we fix the MOD - they have a habbit of gold plating everything to end up with an inferior solution that is over cost and overruns.

We need to get a way of buying some systems off the shelf entirely without the urge to do "British customisations" and "changes" etc. Pure off the shelf as most of the time the british army / forces can adapt. Just look at the sh*t show that was the original apache procurement programme versus what we have now finally done.

We either have strategic interests - for which we need to build some systems at home and we are prepared to bear the cost - or we buy off the shelf - there is no need for a middle ground.

Israel is the best example of a country that gets a lot of value for its money given how much it spends(i include aid in that ..).

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 13:33**

TheLoneRanger wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 12:27
SW1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 11:16
mrclark303 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 10:39
SW1 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2023, 22:58 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d7a6 ... 93405ac7e1
While a little 'basic' in its analysis, the general theme is correct, 30 years of hollowing out, compounded with terrible procurement decisions that were more about placating the electorate and winning another 5 years than 'actually' providing the equipment needed ...

We've been caught with our trousers down now and still no pledge for serious extra money or expedite off the shelf procurement were possible.

Labour bitch and moan about it, but refuse to commit to extra defence spending....
I don’t think more cash solves the problem tbh. There is no guarantee it won’t be further wasted until there is a clear priority laid out that is measured against and a clear capital allocation decision to deliver it and not with mythical efficiency savings. If that means sacred cows need chopped so be it.
Agree - more money immediately wont work until we fix the MOD - they have a habbit of gold plating everything to end up with an inferior solution that is over cost and overruns.

We need to get a way of buying some systems off the shelf entirely without the urge to do "British customisations" and "changes" etc. Pure off the shelf as most of the time the british army / forces can adapt. Just look at the sh*t show that was the original apache procurement programme versus what we have now finally done.

We either have strategic interests - for which we need to build some systems at home and we are prepared to bear the cost - or we buy off the shelf - there is no need for a middle ground.

Israel is the best example of a country that gets a lot of value for its money given how much it spends(i include aid in that ..).

Absolutely, I totally agree, as you identify, our original AH64D procurement was utterly insane, huge amounts of money wasted, in marked contrast, our AH64E procurement was the exact opposite.

Wildcat was yet more insanity, a vast amount of money thrown at a bespoke solution with little prospect of foreign sales...

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 14:16**

I’d disagree on the original apache purchase because it was commonising engines with a fully supported supply chain in country and a fully sovereign DAS system which resulted in a superior product in the region it deployed to for a number of years.

The question that should of be asked after that was should we have taken the Japanese decision and not purchased the e version at all

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 14:54**

SW1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 14:16 I’d disagree on the original apache purchase because it was commonising engines with a fully supported supply chain in country and a fully sovereign DAS system which resulted in a superior product in the region it deployed to for a number of years.

The question that should of be asked after that was should we have taken the Japanese decision and not purchased the e version at all

I see your point SW1 and you could add the value back to the treasury....

However, even taking that and the happy coincidence of the added performance from the RR engines in the sandbox into account, the cost of our D models, in comparison to the US Army version was said to be a quite horrifying between 2 and 3 times the unit cost, because we insisted on UK engines and assembly.

That's an insane waste of money by any metric...

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 16:04**

mrclark303 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 14:54
SW1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 14:16 I’d disagree on the original apache purchase because it was commonising engines with a fully supported supply chain in country and a fully sovereign DAS system which resulted in a superior product in the region it deployed to for a number of years.

The question that should of be asked after that was should we have taken the Japanese decision and not purchased the e version at all
I see your point SW1 and you could add the value back to the treasury....

However, even taking that and the happy coincidence of the added performance from the RR engines in the sandbox into account, the cost of our D models, in comparison to the US Army version was said to be a quite horrifying between 2 and 3 times the unit cost, because we insisted on UK engines and assembly.

That's an insane waste of money by any metric...

In many ways our D model was the E model and what is now the E should have been the F there are so many things on our D's that have informed the E. It should also be noted our E's have extra works over the US E's around better protection of working parts at sea

It should also be said that when I was last at Wattisham the first air crews were coming back from training on the E and were saying that the new rotors and engines helped a lot but didn't fully compensate for the raw power of the RR engines

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 16:25**

I think that any new money should come in the form of UOR's i.e a requirement is idented and then funded something like

600 x Patria 6x6 for a medium BCT with ACP , C&C , SP mortar , Over watch , Assault Pioneer , Ambulance cost 700 million over 4 years

30 x HIMARS based on a MAN 6x6 to support all Medium and light Mech BCT's

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 17:55**

I think the chancellor was in one of the papers saying (pretty much) we get the MoD needs more money, but there's no spare money right now.

I'd say there'd need to be reform across the MoD from postings to pay to get to grips but there's no real push to do so. We'll probably just bumble on.

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 18:04**

topman wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 17:55 I think the chancellor was in one of the papers saying (pretty much) we get the MoD needs more money, but there's no spare money right now.

I'd say there'd need to be reform across the MoD from postings to pay to get to grips but there's no real push to do so. We'll probably just bumble on.

The Treasury does of course quite rightly keep many. many billions tucked away for emergency contingency requirements. Rather than immediately significantly increasing the annual defence budget how much difference do you think a £10 Billion one off payment to the MOD would make with regards sorting out things like accommodation falling apart, increasing ammunition stockpiles, acquiring more spare parts etc? A real help, a drop in the ocean or simply not a viable proposal anyway given how defence procurement / expenditure works?

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 18:29**

Tempest414 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 16:04
mrclark303 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 14:54
SW1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 14:16 I’d disagree on the original apache purchase because it was commonising engines with a fully supported supply chain in country and a fully sovereign DAS system which resulted in a superior product in the region it deployed to for a number of years.

The question that should of be asked after that was should we have taken the Japanese decision and not purchased the e version at all
I see your point SW1 and you could add the value back to the treasury....

However, even taking that and the happy coincidence of the added performance from the RR engines in the sandbox into account, the cost of our D models, in comparison to the US Army version was said to be a quite horrifying between 2 and 3 times the unit cost, because we insisted on UK engines and assembly.

That's an insane waste of money by any metric...
In many ways our D model was the E model and what is now the E should have been the F there are so many things on our D's that have informed the E. It should also be noted our E's have extra works over the US E's around better protection of working parts at sea

It should also be said that when I was last at Wattisham the first air crews were coming back from training on the E and were saying that the new rotors and engines helped a lot but didn't fully compensate for the raw power of the RR engines

A few points Tempest, as far as I am aware, our E models are absolutely bog standard US Army models, diverted from US multi year orders, perhaps I'm wrong there...

The uprated US engine is I believe more powerful than the RR engine of our old D models.

I would concur that our unique D model probably did influence the E model development, increased power and basic maritime mods.

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 19:06**

Phil Sayers wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 18:04
topman wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 17:55 I think the chancellor was in one of the papers saying (pretty much) we get the MoD needs more money, but there's no spare money right now.

I'd say there'd need to be reform across the MoD from postings to pay to get to grips but there's no real push to do so. We'll probably just bumble on.
The Treasury does of course quite rightly keep many. many billions tucked away for emergency contingency requirements. Rather than immediately significantly increasing the annual defence budget how much difference do you think a £10 Billion one off payment to the MOD would make with regards sorting out things like accommodation falling apart, increasing ammunition stockpiles, acquiring more spare parts etc? A real help, a drop in the ocean or simply not a viable proposal anyway given how defence procurement / expenditure works?

The budget isn't being increased by £10bn so it's fairly moot as to what it could do.

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 19:16**

topman wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 19:06
Phil Sayers wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 18:04
topman wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 17:55 I think the chancellor was in one of the papers saying (pretty much) we get the MoD needs more money, but there's no spare money right now.

I'd say there'd need to be reform across the MoD from postings to pay to get to grips but there's no real push to do so. We'll probably just bumble on.
The Treasury does of course quite rightly keep many. many billions tucked away for emergency contingency requirements. Rather than immediately significantly increasing the annual defence budget how much difference do you think a £10 Billion one off payment to the MOD would make with regards sorting out things like accommodation falling apart, increasing ammunition stockpiles, acquiring more spare parts etc? A real help, a drop in the ocean or simply not a viable proposal anyway given how defence procurement / expenditure works?
The budget isn't being increased by £10bn so it's fairly moot as to what it could do.

To answer the question, they would likely piss most of it against the wall....

We require a new review and total reform of procurement and the MOD. The waste is quite frankly staggering....

Posted: **14 Feb 2023, 19:32**

I’ve lost count on how many times they’ve “reformed” procurement in the last 25 years. Not much has changed. Too many programs started each year that they cannot pay for and too many requirements to justify what they first thought off. Until that changes nothing will on that front.

No good photo ops of a nice warehouse with ammo crates or spare engines after all.

Failure of capital allocation between, infrastructure, personnel and procurement. No interest in actually exercising capability at scale to learn lessons and actually do it for real just simulation. Is there a real appetite to shine a light of public scrutiny in dark places I doubt it.

Posted: **15 Feb 2023, 08:15**

However at the same time we need to Change the way HMT go about defence as well

Posted: **15 Feb 2023, 08:29**

mrclark303 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 18:29
Tempest414 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 16:04
mrclark303 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 14:54
SW1 wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 14:16 I’d disagree on the original apache purchase because it was commonising engines with a fully supported supply chain in country and a fully sovereign DAS system which resulted in a superior product in the region it deployed to for a number of years.

The question that should of be asked after that was should we have taken the Japanese decision and not purchased the e version at all
I see your point SW1 and you could add the value back to the treasury....

However, even taking that and the happy coincidence of the added performance from the RR engines in the sandbox into account, the cost of our D models, in comparison to the US Army version was said to be a quite horrifying between 2 and 3 times the unit cost, because we insisted on UK engines and assembly.

That's an insane waste of money by any metric...
In many ways our D model was the E model and what is now the E should have been the F there are so many things on our D's that have informed the E. It should also be noted our E's have extra works over the US E's around better protection of working parts at sea

It should also be said that when I was last at Wattisham the first air crews were coming back from training on the E and were saying that the new rotors and engines helped a lot but didn't fully compensate for the raw power of the RR engines
A few points Tempest, as far as I am aware, our E models are absolutely bog standard US Army models, diverted from US multi year orders, perhaps I'm wrong there...

The uprated US engine is I believe more powerful than the RR engine of our old D models.

I would concur that our unique D model probably did influence the E model development, increased power and basic maritime mods.

No the T700's new engines are some 250 to 300 SHP lower than our old D's but as said the new gearbox and blades make a lot of that up

the UK E's still have some UK only kit on them and as said more work has been done on the UK airframes and some other parts around maritime ops

UK Defence Forum

Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)