Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

Scott Kenny said:
I'd actually argue that's an intended consequence.

Designing and building your own stuff increases military spending, which has long been a rant of Trump's.
Click to expand...
Traditionally, US defence manufacturers have designed and built with export markets in mind. Does Trump intend to damage US military exports? Because that is the immediate consequence of European nations spending more on local design and production. Correct me if I'm wrong?
 
Forest Green said:
I image other EU countries are moving in the same direction. An unintended consequence of Trump's actions.
Click to expand...

And if you consider his administrations’ rule-breaking approach, it makes perfect sense.

Can maintenance, repair, sustainment, and even use of US weapons be 100% guaranteed?

A few months back, I would have said “Yes”.

Now, I’d say “Maybe”.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'd actually argue that's an intended consequence.

Designing and building your own stuff increases military spending, which has long been a rant of Trump's.
Click to expand...
Doubt it, Trump is all about more US exports and less imports in general if you've noticed his moves with tariffs.
 
starviking said:
And if you consider his administrations’ rule-breaking approach, it makes perfect sense.

Can maintenance, repair, sustainment, and even use of US weapons be 100% guaranteed?
Click to expand...
If your foreign policy is to follow the US, then this issue wouldn’t exist.
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
If your foreign policy is to follow the US, then this issue wouldn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Unless you are following US policy but after 4 years the diplomatic equivalent of a Cleveland Steamroller is elected in US who completely reverses policy, condemns the US's own UN resolution and gives a general sense that he may even be employed by the other side. Not that that would ever happen of course.
 
Forest Green said:
Unless you are following US policy but after 4 years the diplomatic equivalent of a Cleveland Steamroller is elected in US who completely reverses policy, condemns the US's own UN resolution and gives a general sense that he may even be employed by the other side. Not that that would ever happen of course.
Click to expand...
If following the US is the fundamental foreign policy, then when US foreign policy makes a 180-degree shift, you should also make a 180-degree shift. If you cannot do so, it is your problem, not America's.

Returning to the main post: If your foreign policy is following the US, then questions like 'What equipment? And how much?' become irrelevant. Instead, you should directly consult the US on 'What should I buy? How much?"
 
Last edited:
Dolgoth Sepk said:
If following the US is the fundamental foreign policy, then when US foreign policy makes a 180-degree shift, you should also make a 180-degree shift. If you cannot do so, it is your problem, not America's.

Returning to the main post: If your foreign policy is following the US, then questions like 'What equipment? And how much?' become irrelevant. Instead, you should directly consult the US on 'What should I buy? How much?"
Click to expand...
Can we draw the line if the US starts barking and chasing its tail?
 
CliSwe said:
Generations of lemmings would agree. Rational thinkers ... might not.
Click to expand...
When you choose to follow the US, thinking becomes the responsibility of the US, not yours.
Forest Green said:
Can we draw the line if the US starts barking and chasing its tail?
Click to expand...
If you cannot clearly draw a line with US actions, I believe it will be very difficult.
At the Security Council resolution, the UK and France could have voted against it, but they abstained
 
Last edited:
CliSwe said:
I think the line should be drawn right now - under this non-discussion you're perpetrating.
Click to expand...
If there's an elephant in the room, not talking about it doesn't change its presence. Oh, and now there's a panda too.
ps：Recent Gripen exports seem to be affected by the US. Can you guarantee that future equipment will have no US technology?
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
If there's an elephant in the room, not talking about it doesn't change its presence. Oh, and now there's a panda too.
ps：Recent Gripen exports seem to be affected by the US. Can you guarantee that future equipment will have no US technology?
Click to expand...
Can the US guarantee whatever they buy or build will be exclusively American?
 
CliSwe said:
Traditionally, US defence manufacturers have designed and built with export markets in mind. Does Trump intend to damage US military exports? Because that is the immediate consequence of European nations spending more on local design and production. Correct me if I'm wrong?
Click to expand...
Intend to? Probably not.

But he sure does intend for all of NATO to abide by the 2% spending or suffer consequences.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The problem is that the US is bipolar and reverses positions every 4-12 years, usually every 8 or so.
Click to expand...
Your response in another thread inspired me.
When the UK's nuclear deterrent relies on the US Trident missile system to function, the choice is either to abandon nuclear capabilities or independently develop SLBMs—either way, the UK remains tethered to America's geopolitical sway.
No amount of complaints can alter this reality.
PS, France's aircraft carrier catapult and arresting gear systems are also procured from the US
 
Last edited:
Dolgoth Sepk said:
Your response in another thread inspired me.
When the UK's nuclear deterrent relies on the US Trident missile system to function, the choice is either to abandon nuclear capabilities or independently develop SLBMs—either way, the UK remains tethered to America's geopolitical sway.
No amount of complaints can alter this reality.
PS, France's aircraft carrier catapult and arresting gear systems are also procured from the US
Click to expand...
You're not wrong that the UK is kinda in trouble in terms of all the supporting bits of a missile system. The US designed the entire missile compartment, the missiles proper, the Missile Control Center in the sub, and the inertial navigation system used. The only uniquely-British part is the warheads (and maybe the Reentry Bodies, I'm not sure about that).

However, the UK can independently order missile launches. UK Tridents are not a dual-key system where both US and UK folks have to agree to release them.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're not wrong that the UK is kinda in trouble in terms of all the supporting bits of a missile system. The US designed the entire missile compartment, the missiles proper, the Missile Control Center in the sub, and the inertial navigation system used. The only uniquely-British part is the warheads (and maybe the Reentry Bodies, I'm not sure about that).

However, the UK can independently order missile launches. UK Tridents are not a dual-key system where both US and UK folks have to agree to release them.
Click to expand...
Hi, complex systems aren't entirely yours just because you bought them – their maintenance and upkeep technologies are heavily reliant on the manufacturer. With the US Trident missile system undergoing life extension will the UK follow suit?
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
Hi, complex systems aren't entirely yours just because you bought them – their maintenance and upkeep technologies are heavily reliant on the manufacturer. With the US Trident missile system undergoing life extension will the UK follow suit?
Click to expand...
Yes, the missiles are shared between the two countries. The only difference is in whose warheads get put on them.

And yes, the missiles have a life expectancy and are regularly rotated out.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, the missiles are shared between the two countries. The only difference is in whose warheads get put on them.

And yes, the missiles have a life expectancy and are regularly rotated out.
Click to expand...
Stop beating around the bush. Can the UK independently maintain and extend the lifespan of its Triden missiles? Yes or no.
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
Stop beating around the bush. Can the UK independently maintain and extend the lifespan of its Triden missiles? Yes or no.
Click to expand...
5 Years and we can replace under a crash program.
Maybe less with French assistance.
Bus side we've got the industry.
Motor side we'd need major effort on.
Testing is expensive.
 
zen said:
5 Years and we can replace under a crash program.
Maybe less with French assistance.
Bus side we've got the industry.
Motor side we'd need major effort on.
Testing is expensive.
Click to expand...
I think it'd take more than 5 years to figure out how to reliably cast an 87" diameter solid rocket motor, but if the UK does go for it I hope to be proven wrong.

I mean, the basic designs are 45-50 years old... Then the D5LE happened, but I think that was just replacing old components with less-old components that were still in production. (D5LE was actually after my time in the Navy)
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think it'd take more than 5 years to figure out how to reliably cast an 87" diameter solid rocket motor, but if the UK does go for it I hope to be proven wrong.

I mean, the basic designs are 45-50 years old... Then the D5LE happened, but I think that was just replacing old components with less-old components that were still in production. (D5LE was actually after my time in the Navy)
Click to expand...
Simply put I suspect that the French can do us a deal on the motor. After all it's slightly less than M51
 
Scott Kenny said:
Ah, fair point. I was assuming purely internal development.
Click to expand...
Well it all depends at the moment.
The press isn't beyond our industrial capacity to build.....what's left of that capacity.

Not sure on the mass manufacturing of the chemistry however. Building the plant is going to require just sweeping aside the current planning and permission system. So a legal exemption through parliament is needed and that's where the opposition (to our deterrent) is going to do their utmost to disarm us by simply bogging the legislative process down.

However Starmer has a crushing majority....except it's a Labour majority filled with anti-military political figures.

Ironic and controversial, maybe even funny. But Starmer merely has to summon the ghost of Attlee and Bevan, and bang heads together. The Bomb, like the NHS and Welfare, was a product of Labour's Postwar decisions.
 
zen said:
Well it all depends at the moment.
The press isn't beyond our industrial capacity to build.....what's left of that capacity.

Not sure on the mass manufacturing of the chemistry however. Building the plant is going to require just sweeping aside the current planning and permission system. So a legal exemption through parliament is needed and that's where the opposition (to our deterrent) is going to do their utmost to disarm us by simply bogging the legislative process down.

However Starmer has a crushing majority....except it's a Labour majority filled with anti-military political figures.

Ironic and controversial, maybe even funny. But Starmer merely has to summon the ghost of Attlee and Bevan, and bang heads together. The Bomb, like the NHS and Welfare, was a product of Labour's Postwar decisions.
Click to expand...
Ultimately, it boils down to the volume of orders you secure – both military and civilian.
For the UK Royal Navy, the orders for SLBMs would hypothetically total 64+64 (assuming a 1:1 backup ratio). If delivered over 20 years, followed by a 40-year order drought before a hypothetical new batch of 128 missiles in the distant future,
How could defense enterprises survive during the 20-year gap without any orders?
This challenge extends beyond SLBMs to submarines, warships, fighter jets, etc.

PS: While the enterprise as a whole faces a 20-year production gap, its R&D personnel, facilities, and software infrastructure would endure a 40-year technological drought. Without continuous updates, these investments become one-time sunk costs.

PS2: one could extend the delivery timeline for the order to 40 years while accepting the risk of production shortages during periods of high demand. This statement highlights that the entire European continent has yet to provide Ukraine with as many 155mm artillery shells as South Korea has
 
Last edited:
Dolgoth Sepk said:
Ultimately, it boils down to the volume of orders you secure – both military and civilian.
Click to expand...
This is where life gets.....interesting.

Critical node is HEU facility, which currently the UK lacks. Though studies have been done I understand on establishment of a new facility. Much pearl clutching and hand wringing over 'treaties' and costs.

Production run would be massively eased by becoming supplier of 'dual key' weapons to European NATO in place of US. We could be talking many hundreds of warheads here and a steady flow of sustainment work. With the option of rolling upgrades.
Which has the added benefit of being an much more upfront and explicit arrangement for everyone involved.
The US weapons were never 'free', just the 'price' wasn't a simple matter of money. But with us it would be straightforwardly a contractual arrangement.

Actually a win-win-win here.
Europe gets greater assurance over nuclear umbrella.
US gets to withdraw their nukes and save billions.
Russia gets an upfront process that's restraining certain European states.....how shall I put this nicely?....ambitions.

If Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Sweden, Romania and Poland stump up the cash, UK and France can provide.
As it is UK-French sharing of facilities is increasing. Current events could be the trigger for acceleration and deepening of that relationship.
 
zen said:
This is where life gets.....interesting.

Critical node is HEU facility, which currently the UK lacks. Though studies have been done I understand on establishment of a new facility. Much pearl clutching and hand wringing over 'treaties' and costs.
Click to expand...
Similar to the issue of SLBMs I mentioned, to what level does the UK plan to expand its nuclear arsenal? Is it aiming to match China, Russia, or the United States? After this round of expansion, when can we expect the next round of orders?
Therefore, without resolving the challenges in civilian nuclear energy, no enterprise would commit to such orders with an uncertain future.

ps,I have little faith in the speed of large-scale infrastructure projects in Europe.
 
Last edited:
Dolgoth Sepk said:
Similar to the issue of SLBMs I mentioned, to what level does the UK plan to expand its nuclear arsenal?
Click to expand...
At moment it's still in sustainment mode. What is being discussed behind closed doors.....?
Dolgoth Sepk said:
Is it aiming to match China, Russia, or the United States?
Click to expand...
A highly political question.
Dolgoth Sepk said:
After this round of expansion, when can we expect the next round of orders?
Click to expand...
More highly political questions.
 
zen said:
At moment it's still in sustainment mode. What is being discussed behind closed doors.....?

A highly political question.

More highly political questions.
Click to expand...
These are indeed politically charged issues, but for businesses, they translate to orders and profits.
If the profit margins don't exceed the Federal Reserve's benchmark interest rate, why should I expand production?
 
Dolgoth Sepk said:
These are indeed politically charged issues, but for businesses, they translate to orders and profits.
If the profit margins don't exceed the Federal Reserve's benchmark interest rate, why should I expand production?
Click to expand...
The Deterrent is not a business in the UK.
Despite various claims, it's fundamentally a state run enterprise.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom