Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

Hood said:
I did find an un-paywalled version. It's a complaint about families of members of the armed forces having to pay inheritance tax if they die whilst in service. Also a gripe that the state won't fund service families' kids to go to private schools.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, I can't imagine that very many enlisted troops would die in conflicts with substantial estates, aside from government life insurance payouts. Poverty is practically a prerequisite for military service.

Inheritance taxes are generally poor sources of revenue and damage the economic prospects of small and medium sized enterprises. All too often, family owned businesses are sold or liquidated to pay inheritance taxes. The damage is especially profound for agriculture, with Argentina as a perfect example. Beef production on the pampas is often inadequate for even domestic consumption because family owned ranches have to be partially sold off to the pay the inheritance taxes every generation. It's hard to imagine that Argentina exported enough beef to keep Britain fed in both world wars and that the country had a higher standard of living than the UK after WWII.
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

What does the Government have against our Armed Forces?

We could all manage fairly well without train drivers, but we cannot survive without the men and women who fight tirelessly for this country
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
It's the Torygraph, a more insightful lede might be "what story is the Torygraph manufacturing today to imply the government hates the UK"

For reference, the Inheritance Tax threshhold is £325,000; and effectively double that for couples - the survivor inherits their partner's allowance to combine with theirs. Not many squaddies likely to have over £325,000/£650,000 in their estate.
 
Last edited:
TinWing said:
It should be fairly easy to make Britain's underground and passenger trains predomoninantly "driverless," especially on grade separated, passenger only lines. Subway motor men haven't truly been necessary for decades and the risks of human error are far greater than any technical challenges.
Click to expand...
Bit difficult to imagine an automated train control system walking through the train to identify why the door wouldn't close - it was me, wedging my wheelchair into the door to prevent departure, because passenger assistance hadn't turned up, it was 12 at night and the train was announcing it was now fast to somewhere an hour up entirely the wrong line. (Plus there was a crowd of drunks volunteering to 'help' me off).

That was a couple of years ago, but I had passenger assistance fail to turn up to get me off a train just this afternoon. Oddly enough that problem never happens when the train crew make certain it arrives.

Even the East and West Coast Main Lines aren't passenger only, not sure if they're entirely grade separated either.
 
DWG said:
It's the Torygraph, a more insightful lede might be "what story is the Torygraph manufacturing today to imply the government hates the UK"

For reference, the Inheritance Tax threshhold is £325,000; and effectively double that for couples - the survivor inherits their partner's allowance to combine with theirs. Not many squaddies likely to have over £325,000/£650,000 in their estate.
Click to expand...
My life insurance payout was about that much ($400k actually). Where does the life insurance payout fall in the UK tax scheme? Is that an inheritance tax issue or is it income to the survivors?
 
Scott Kenny said:
My life insurance payout was about that much ($400k actually). Where does the life insurance payout fall in the UK tax scheme? Is that an inheritance tax issue or is it income to the survivors?
Click to expand...
I think most people have their life insurance set to pay off their mortgage, so it mostly cancels out. Not sure where it falls in tax issues.
 
A huge step in the right direction, would be to simplify the recruiting process. Sack Crapita and transfer the recruiting and retention system back to MoD.
Rhinocrates said:
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Government announce huge changes to armed forces recruitment

Labour say that over the last ten years, more than one million applied to join the British armed forces but most gave up due to delays.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

  1. Scrapping 100 outdated policies that currently block people from joining the military.
  2. Setting new targets for the Forces to reject or make a conditional offer to applicants within 10 days, and to give people a training start date within 30 days.
  3. Introducing a direct recruitment route for cyber specialists, particularly targeting top gamers and coders. “If you are a top gamer or coder, your country needs you,” Healey said.
Click to expand...

GTX said:
Sounds good
Click to expand...
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Starmer told his defence budget ‘won’t touch the sides’

‘Many billions more’ need to be spent beyond current pledge of 2.5pc of GDP, say military chiefs
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
While this is arguably true, it does not follow that we should return to standing Armies on the European Continent.
If the US is set to withdraw more, then we must place our independence, our survival above alliances.
Not entanglements we cannot afford.

Considering our domestic situation......
 
zen said:
While this is arguably true, it does not follow that we should return to standing Armies on the European Continent.
If the US is set to withdraw more, then we must place our independence, our survival above alliances.
Not entanglements we cannot afford.

Considering our domestic situation......
Click to expand...
Large standing armies are what British governments have historically striven to avoid. But that policy only held water whilst Britain was the world's largest naval power. The anaemic BAOR was actually a good investment, viewed simply as an anti-Soviet tripwire. These days, the defensive lines will sit much further East, and UK forces should make a flexible - not necessarily massive - contribution to a NATO response capability, possibly based in Poland. Trump will do everything in his power to frustrate such plans - because his best buddy Putin told him to.
 
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Britain planning fleet of drone vessels to patrol Atlantic

Britain is planning to patrol the Atlantic using a fleet built around the new Type 92 Sloop – a drone vessel – and the Type 93, a drone submarine. This, they hope, will free up crewed warships for other missions.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Say hello to the 40 meter long Type 92 sloop USV and the Type 93 UUV for ASW coverage of the GIUK gap. By the sound of things, the Type 92 sloop will be smaller than the Netherlands AAW oriented MSS. Think Damen 4008 rather than the bigger 5009. Maybe a Swath hull but I'm bettering on the black painted XV Patrick Blackett as a trials ship.

The map/info graphic depicts the deployment of 3 of 8 Type 26 frigates, 2 of 7 Astute SSNs along with 9 Type 92 sloops and a stunning 14 Type 93 UUVs.
 
Last edited:
TinWing said:
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Britain planning fleet of drone vessels to patrol Atlantic

Britain is planning to patrol the Atlantic using a fleet built around the new Type 92 Sloop – a drone vessel – and the Type 93, a drone submarine. This, they hope, will free up crewed warships for other missions.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Say hello to the 40 meter long Type 92 sloop USV and the Type 93 UUV for ASW coverage of the GIUK gap. By the sound of things, the Type 92 sloop will be smaller than the Netherlands AAW oriented MSS. Think Damen 4008 rather than the bigger 5009. Maybe a Swath hull but I'm bettering on the black painted XV Patrick Blackett as a trials ship.
Click to expand...

Not the craziest idea I've heard out of the RN.
 
TinWing said:
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Britain planning fleet of drone vessels to patrol Atlantic

Britain is planning to patrol the Atlantic using a fleet built around the new Type 92 Sloop – a drone vessel – and the Type 93, a drone submarine. This, they hope, will free up crewed warships for other missions.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Say hello to the 40 meter long Type 92 sloop USV and the Type 93 UUV for ASW coverage of the GIUK gap. By the sound of things, the Type 92 sloop will be smaller than the Netherlands AAW oriented MSS. Think Damen 4008 rather than the bigger 5009. Maybe a Swath hull but I'm bettering on the black painted XV Patrick Blackett as a trials ship.

The map/info graphic depicts the deployment of 3 of 8 Type 26 frigates, 2 of 7 Astute SSNs along with 9 Type 92 sloops and a stunning 14 Type 93 UUVs.
Click to expand...
The map shows 6 Sloops and 4 Chariots as part of Phase 1 (Atlantic Net) which is contractor-owned and operated. Are these included in the eventual T26/Astute deployment for Phase 2 (Bastion Atlantic)?
 
This is interesting. Britain's European allies can fill in some of the CSG capability gaps, I'm sure. The Germans could probably step up. But as for leaving the backdoor unlocked? A lone T23 could operate as UK guard ship. And the odd Tu95 can be safely greeted and ushered out the door by the resident Typhoons. Anything more serious than Russian spy ships or Bears, is highly unlikely.
 
uk 75 said:
The usual crew of retired military and political types are warning that the UK is not able to meet its defence requirements with the present budget and kit.


Given the collective expertise on this board what advice would you give the Prime Minister who takes over in May after the election?


I find the present situation eerily similar to that in the 60s when we were having to balance our Continental NATO commitments with the various crises out of area. Then it was a no-brainer, NATO dictated what we spent money on in the 70s and 80s. Today I am not so sure.
Click to expand...
UK75 -

“ Guns, or Butter “

This is not meant to give any approval or validation to the author of the phrase.


With regards,
357Mag
 
FighterJock said:
Something has to go Grey Havoc if we are to fund the military properly and that something is the overseas aid that we give.
Click to expand...

Thing is, overseas aid is probably the single most cost-effective soft-power influence tool that governments have. Russia and China both understand this and are using it aggressively (especially China). The West is cutting that aid just at the moment when it is most needed for their own policy objectives. We are literally handing Africa in particular to the Chinese and Russians.
 
What thanks do the African countries give us for that aid TomS over the years that we have supported them? None. About time we used that money for our own country instead.
 
TomS said:
Thing is, overseas aid is probably the single most cost-effective soft-power influence tool that governments have. Russia and China both understand this and are using it aggressively (especially China). The West is cutting that aid just at the moment when it is most needed for their own policy objectives. We are literally handing Africa in particular to the Chinese and Russians.
Click to expand...

Do the Russian's actually do overseas aid? Last I heard it was around $1bn and mostly spent close to home.
 
timmymagic said:
Do the Russian's actually do overseas aid? Last I heard it was around $1bn and mostly spent close to home.
Click to expand...

Well, they do other sorts of influence ops that fill the same functional niches as Western overseas aid.
 
FighterJock said:
What thanks do the African countries give us for that aid TomS over the years that we have supported them? None. About time we used that money for our own country instead.
Click to expand...

Surprising amounts of support and access to resources, right up until we started curtailing humanitarian and development aid in favor of military assistance.
 
CliSwe said:
What sort of things do they do - which presumably aren't costed?
Click to expand...

Government sanctioned "private" investment, mainly, often hybridized with military support (see the Wagner Group's operations in Africa, which are combinations of resource investment/extraction and security assistance.)
 
www.telegraph.co.uk

Defence boost ‘probably less than half of £13.4bn Starmer pledged’

Economists label figure ‘misleading’ as John Healey says ‘taking in inflation, it would be something over £6 billion’
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

www.telegraph.co.uk

Politics latest news: Starmer refuses to say if Chagos deal will be funded from defence budget

Sir Keir Starmer has refused to say whether the deal to give away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius would be funded from the Ministry of Defence’s budget.
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

www.telegraph.co.uk

Defence industry warns Starmer spending boost is not enough for ‘wartime’

Senior figures say increasing the defence budget will not create ‘instantaneous surge in capability’
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
"Officials have been advised by US insiders to reduce Britain’s reliance on American equipment"

www.thetimes.com

MoD makes kit wish list after £6bn increase in defence spending

Officials have been advised by US insiders to reduce Britain’s reliance on American equipment
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com
Click to expand...
50+ years late but at least a start in the right thinking.

Sadly we need 25 years of solid investment to turn things round and any crash efforts would provoke....a crash unsurprisingly.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom