Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

quinn whitsitt said:
that is true but still having a larger force is always good to have
Click to expand...
Not if you can't get them trained to your appropriate standards.

I mean, it takes the US 2 years to get a modern infantryman from boot camp to ready for first combat deployment. Most of 1 year just to get the individual up to "ready to go to a combat unit" and most of the second year to get the unit ready for combat.
 
aonestudio said:
www.bbc.com

Glascoed: Explosion at BAE Systems Monmouthshire site

An incident control post has been set up, with emergency services at the scene.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
David TC Davies, MP for Monmouth, said the explosion occured "in a remote part of the site that had been set aside to take apart shells".
Click to expand...

"I am told there is always a small risk involved in this particular operation, which is exactly why it is carried out with remote control in a restricted area of the site. There were no risks to any members of the public," he added.
Click to expand...
 
Crossing over from the QE-class discussion.

I can make a case for the UK to buy on the order of 90x V22 Ospreys. Totally replacing the Merlins 1:1, and about 20 more for extra missions not currently done at all.

RAF has a stated need for about 12 for CSAR, they've been farming that out to the USAF PJs. The need is for 8 aircraft, based on availability you need 12 Ospreys to have 8 available for use at a moment's notice. IMO, every nation should have their own CSAR community, it's part of the cost of being a nation. But I don't see Treasury coughing up money for it until there's an event where USAF was not available at all or at least in time to get the British troops/individuals out alive, and now there's a huge public outcry about how the Government is not able to protect its subjects abroad.

Ospreys are the same size as Merlins, so it'd be a 1-for-1 replacement there. 44x ASW/AEW plus 28x for Commando transport makes 72x airframes. Add 6-8x Ospreys as COD (~2-3 per carrier plus reserves), that's the other mission not currently being done.

No Ospreys to replace Chinooks, Chinooks are bigger and carry more weight. You'd need a completely different craft for that job, either a quad rotor tiltrotor or an H47G/H53K class helicopter.

Yes, this would be screamingly expensive and Treasury would have conniptions. It's also not likely to happen for 15-20 years, when it's time to replace the Merlins anyways. Barring an early event to pry money out of Treasury, of course.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Crossing over from the QE-class discussion.

I can make a case for the UK to buy on the order of 90x V22 Ospreys. Totally replacing the Merlins 1:1, and about 20 more for extra missions not currently done at all.

RAF has a stated need for about 12 for CSAR, they've been farming that out to the USAF PJs. The need is for 8 aircraft, based on availability you need 12 Ospreys to have 8 available for use at a moment's notice. IMO, every nation should have their own CSAR community, it's part of the cost of being a nation. But I don't see Treasury coughing up money for it until there's an event where USAF was not available at all or at least in time to get the British troops/individuals out alive, and now there's a huge public outcry about how the Government is not able to protect its subjects abroad.

Ospreys are the same size as Merlins, so it'd be a 1-for-1 replacement there. 44x ASW/AEW plus 28x for Commando transport makes 72x airframes. Add 6-8x Ospreys as COD (~2-3 per carrier plus reserves), that's the other mission not currently being done.

No Ospreys to replace Chinooks, Chinooks are bigger and carry more weight. You'd need a completely different craft for that job, either a quad rotor tiltrotor or an H47G/H53K class helicopter.

Yes, this would be screamingly expensive and Treasury would have conniptions. It's also not likely to happen for 15-20 years, when it's time to replace the Merlins anyways. Barring an early event to pry money out of Treasury, of course.
Click to expand...
The Osprey really has too much rotor downwash for many historical CSAR scenarios. I’d much rather be plucked from the water by a Merlin. Moreover, noise is also an issue with aircrew rescue. A Merlin can really sneak up on you…. Or a determined enemy search for your downed pilot.

The Chinook is efficient as a load carrier and a lot safer than as Osprey but it’s another terrible CSAR platform, even if it can (very hypothetically) make a water-landing like an old Sea King.

As far as the UK is concerned, a further Merlin production run, updated with GE engines like the Apaches, would be advisable. It really is a world class helicopter in terms of the rotor system. A lot of lives would have been saved if Dick Cheney had cancelled the Osprey and something akin to the Merlin or Boeing Model 360 been procured to replace the CH-46.

The best argument for the CH-47 is economic. There are some fundamental vibration issues and performance should have been solved with the rotor system of the Boeing 360. It always amused me that the CH-47 could be used for special forces missions. I can only assume that America’s enemies all have profound hearing damage from our air strikes because you can really hear the CH-47 from a very long way away.
 
TinWing said:
The Osprey really has too much rotor downwash for many historical CSAR scenarios. I’d much rather be plucked from the water by a Merlin. Moreover, noise is also an issue with aircrew rescue. A Merlin can really sneak up on you…. Or a determined enemy search for your downed pilot.
Click to expand...
Remember, this is combat search and rescue, where speed is critical.

The high downwash is a result of sizing the rotors and wings for the old LHAs, that ended up being out of service before V22s officially entered service. The proper fix is probably a "V-22C" model, that's been stretched about 6ft forward-aft, 6ft longer wingspan, and has 5ft wider diameter rotors.


TinWing said:
As far as the UK is concerned, a further Merlin production run, updated with GE engines like the Apaches, would be advisable. It really is a world class helicopter in terms of the rotor system. A lot of lives would have been saved if Dick Cheney had cancelled the Osprey and something akin to the Merlin or Boeing Model 360 been procured to replace the CH-46.
Click to expand...
Nope, the USMC absolutely required something with Osprey speed and range. Which means a Tiltrotor of some flavor. The whole deal came out of the 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis and attempted rescue.


TinWing said:
The best argument for the CH-47 is economic. There are some fundamental vibration issues and performance should have been solved with the rotor system of the Boeing 360. It always amused me that the CH-47 could be used for special forces missions. I can only assume that America’s enemies all have profound hearing damage from our air strikes because you can really hear the CH-47 from a very long way away.
Click to expand...
The noise of a Chinook comes from the wide rotor blades, apparently. If they could make thin 5-bladed rotors like off a Sea King intermesh reliably, those would be far quieter.

As to why the Chinooks were originally chosen for special ops, they were twice as fast as a Huey. A loaded Chinook can hit 200mph, a loaded huey is usually around 100.
 
It's notable that current GBAD funding is from 2027.....placing it squarely in the lap of the next government after a General election and deep into a period when government spending will be in even higher demand than now.
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Penny Mordaunt calls for an Iron Dome over Britain

House of Commons Leader urges PM to increase security spending as former ministers warn UK is not capable of protecting itself from attack
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
Iron Dome seems like an odd choice for UK homeland defence. It's aimed at stopping short range rocket attacks, but last I checked we don't have such neighbouring threats. Maybe for deployed use it would be useful though.
 
Forest Green said:
Iron Dome seems like an odd choice for UK homeland defence. It's aimed at stopping short range rocket attacks, but last I checked we don't have such neighbouring threats. Maybe for deployed use it would be useful though.
Click to expand...

I think it's clear that they are using the term (incorrectly) to refer to an overall national air and missile defense system, not to Iron Dome (Tamir) specifically.

I do wonder who Mordaunt is expecting to attack the British Isles. Probably the Germans...
 
Forest Green said:
Iron Dome seems like an odd choice for UK homeland defence.
Click to expand...
I think she was using the term as an easily recognisable shorthand for the Integrated Air and Missile Defence System, in other words a comprehensive air defence system incorporating both SAMs and missile interceptors, a proposal for which has previously been shot down by No. 10 (Sunak has a pretty dire record on defence, no surprise there).
 
Scott Kenny said:
I can make a case for the UK to buy on the order of 90x V22 Ospreys. Totally replacing the Merlins 1:1, and about 20 more for extra missions not currently done at all.
Click to expand...
I wound up with similar numbers for a cost-no-object exercise, split between ASW, Commando medium lift, and SOF/CSAR. I assumed COD and AEW would be done by fixed-wing Hawkeye derivatives... I did say cost-no-object!
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Britain didn't even have an integrated air and missile defence system during the height of the Cold War, why have one now?
Click to expand...
There was an integrated air defence system, or at least attempts to produce one, throughout the Cold War. Missile defence wasn't really a capability that existed anywhere (other than development ranges and Moscow) during that timeframe.

There's much more missile defence capability around these days, along with many more powers capable of a missile attack. It would be unreasonable not to consider it in defining a UK air defence system.
 
Yellow Palace said:
I wound up with similar numbers for a cost-no-object exercise, split between ASW, Commando medium lift, and SOF/CSAR. I assumed COD and AEW would be done by fixed-wing Hawkeye derivatives... I did say cost-no-object!
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can't quite see how to pry that much money out of Treasury short of a disaster on the order of Op Eagle Claw and/or Blackhawk Merlin Down. And it'd have to happen when the US is unavailable to support, presumably because we're eyeballs deep in a Taiwan scenario.
 
TinWing said:
The problem is that small wars are no longer simple affairs. In the Red Sea debacle, you have novel threats which are currently unmatched in Western arsenals. That’s not to suggest that small anti-ship ballistic missiles and cheap prop driven “cruise missiles” are especially effective or worthy of emulation, just that a “near peer” level of capability might be needed any operation, no matter how small. Sierra Leone in 1998 was a low risk endeavor. In 2028 or 2038, a similar humanitarian intervention might require naval escorts against USV, UUV, drone and missile threats and forces ashore would need C-RAM and C-UAV protection.

It also goes without saying that small wars can build public confidence in armed forces. But it’s very much a double edged sword. I think we can all agree that the 2010 Defence Review wouldn’t have been nearly as severe if the “small wars” ongoing at the time hadn’t been so very “controversial,” to use a very diplomatic term for the public mood at the time.
Click to expand...
U.K. probably needs to split its army, into a home defence force, of new recruits, old hands, and reservists. Then from the new recruits, have a force of 10-20k for deployments etc. also need a plan for all out war, in terms of hardware(assuming nothing comes from China) and more people(trainers, bases etc.
 
Yellow Palace said:
I wound up with similar numbers for a cost-no-object exercise, split between ASW, Commando medium lift, and SOF/CSAR. I assumed COD and AEW would be done by fixed-wing Hawkeye derivatives... I did say cost-no-object!

There was an integrated air defence system, or at least attempts to produce one, throughout the Cold War. Missile defence wasn't really a capability that existed anywhere (other than development ranges and Moscow) during that timeframe.

There's much more missile defence capability around these days, along with many more powers capable of a missile attack. It would be unreasonable not to consider it in defining a UK air defence system.
Click to expand...
We had a good detection capability, but the only ground based systems were bloodhound, and short range rapier. Bloodhound only defended the raf v bomber bases, plus lightning aircraft, then further out were f4/tornado f3.

But we would be behind the rest of nato, so probably acceptable. Even today, I’d consider a U.K. wide system a bit extravagant.

Buying a couple more sky sabre units, but 50% manned by reserves, would be a good start, and surveying locations all around the country- just in case.

The recent suggestion that we need iron dome is very poor logic. We don’t live next door to a country which states and actions it’s desire to destroy us.
 
There are trade-offs, and I don't think the UK can afford expeditionary capabilities like the Carriers, CASD, British Army on the Vistula, and ROTOR 2.0 simultaneously, certainly not without spending as a proportion of GDP probably greatly in excess of that of the early 1950s.

You're also asking a stagnant economy and population that now on average has lower living standards than it did in 2008 to foot the bill, especially after they've been told for a decade and a half to accept this stagnation, if not decline in living standards on the basis that this would pay for the future.

Certainly I'd marginally increase defence spending, but I primarily think that increase should be spent on military aid to Ukraine. If Russia is stalemated, let alone defeated in Ukraine then I doubt they will be able to marshall significant resources to threaten the Baltic States and Poland, let alone Britain.
 
Last edited:
Fluff said:
U.K. probably needs to split its army, into a home defence force, of new recruits, old hands, and reservists. Then from the new recruits, have a force of 10-20k for deployments etc. also need a plan for all out war, in terms of hardware(assuming nothing comes from China) and more people(trainers, bases etc.
Click to expand...
I’d suggest that the UK should be able to field a pair of Commando Brigades. With the ridiculously low number of tanks planned, the UK might as well donate the balance of the Challengers, upgraded or not, and leave MBT capabilities to the Poles who will be fielding 1,000 MBTs. As to the balance of land forces, support units aside, train them as a Gendarmerie for humanitarian and UN interventions. Italy’s Carabinieri and Spain’s Guardia Civil are very useful organizations without direct parallels in the English speaking world.

The UK really doesn’t need to plan for “all out conflicts.” If there is a direct war between any of the 3 Super Powers in the world, it will go strategic very quickly. Only Trident will be of any use whatsoever, and even then, it will be only be a small contribution to this world ending scenario.

Everyone is still overexcited by the current confict. In reality, conscription based attritional warfare is only possible is in less developed countries. In an affluent multiethnic society, young people aren’t going to be conscripted for dated concepts of ethnic nationalism. The current war even contains elements of sectarian conflict between rival orthodox patriarchs, who excommunicate each other as if it was still the 11th century. This is not the future but a reflection of two backward, underdeveloped societies.
 
Fluff said:
We had a good detection capability, but the only ground based systems were bloodhound, and short range rapier. Bloodhound only defended the raf v bomber bases, plus lightning aircraft, then further out were f4/tornado f3.

But we would be behind the rest of nato, so probably acceptable. Even today, I’d consider a U.K. wide system a bit extravagant.

Buying a couple more sky sabre units, but 50% manned by reserves, would be a good start, and surveying locations all around the country- just in case.

The recent suggestion that we need iron dome is very poor logic. We don’t live next door to a country which states and actions it’s desire to destroy us.
Click to expand...
The problem is the range and proliferation of hypersonic gliders, regardless of armament (kinetic, conventional, or nuclear).

Remember, the US flight tested some hypergliders in the 1960s that had an 8000km range and 1600km cross range, and were only at 100kft altitude. I suspect that things like Avanguard et sim are much better ranged.

Intercepting hypersonics unfortunately seems to require defense launchers within 10km of the target areas, which means having many such defense launchers. Fortunately, radars and TELs do not have to be co-located anymore. But it still means that you'd need TELs set up inside London to cover the UK National Command Authority (or whatever you call it), for example. In addition to ones at Holy Loch and the UK nuclear power plants.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Intercepting hypersonics unfortunately seems to require defense launchers within 10km of the target areas, which means having many such defense launchers. Fortunately, radars and TELs do not have to be co-located anymore. But it still means that you'd need TELs set up inside London to cover the UK National Command Authority (or whatever you call it), for example. In addition to ones at Holy Loch and the UK nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...
There is the rub, what exactly do you protect with a SAM/ABM system?
Pretty early on in the 1950s the AAA sites were reduced to those around London and some of the major industrial areas in the Midlands. ROTOR and all radar systems since then have concentrated on the east coast and Scotland. The Bloodhound defences were limited to the V-Bomber bases - which incidentally provided a SAM belt against anyone trying to bomb the south coming in over the southern North Sea. Since the 1970s Rapiers provided point-defence for RAF airfields.
Post-Strath Report in 1955 basically in H-Bomb WW3 everywhere else was written off. Then there were model scenarios of half a dozen H-Bombs exploded along the western coastline would irradiate the majority of Britain due to the prevailing winds. Then of course came Soviet SLBMs which could come in via the back door.

The RAF is now down to 5 main operational airfields spread across the UK, there is the HQ at High Wycombe and the Air and Space Warfare Centre at Waddington.
The RN is now down to two major operational ports Devonport/Portsmouth and Clyde. HQ is in Portsmouth.
The national HQ is Northwood, north-west London.

I suppose the most likely choice would be a couple of Aegis Ashore installations on the east coast (Norfolk and Aberdeenshire?), but their usefulness against hypersonic targets and incoming warheads would be open to question.
Your archetypal bad guy dictator would probably want to flatten London but if only London was defended, the rest of the country would be annoyed/complain about the cost and need.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
There are trade-offs, and I don't think the UK can afford expeditionary capabilities like the Carriers, CASD, British Army on the Vistula, and ROTOR 2.0 simultaneously, certainly not without spending as a proportion of GDP probably greatly in excess of that of the early 1950s.
Click to expand...
I have been musing about small nation defence policy for a long time, as it is extremely interesting to see how different militaries would have to plan for their specific geostrategic needs. The UK is not a small nation, nor is it a small economy, but the changing defence reality since the 1990's has forced it to change in various degrees. Now, we see a combination of overseas deployments to trouble spots around the world, as well as the threat of a wider, large conventional conflict in Eastern Europe, not to mention the Pacific.

In this perspective, the Royal Navy and Airforce take importance, as they can deploy rapidly and flexibly. One can see this in the way that funding is going, and given that the RN needs some big capabilities to solve its current issues, they will likely be given precedence for the time being.

My view is that the Army has had two schools of thought who have competed against each other since the end of the Second World War; those who favour heavy forces and those who favour lighter forces. I think that this only really leads to a "split personality" of the British Army, with two doctrines that attempt to work together but struggle to do so. I think that this split however, could be made to work in favour of the UK. A British Army on the Vistula is frankly not necessary; the realities of the Cold War are completely different to those we face today. During the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact had a huge numerical advantage compared to NATO, in addition to the fact that the line of conflict was in Central Europe, mostly along the Inner German Border, Denmark and Czechoslovakia. This meant that a failure to defend Germany would directly threaten France and the Low Countries. Thus, it was imperative that these countries had large, mechanised armies to defend their territory, in addition to large conventional forces from other Allied powers, the UK included. Now however, the border has moved hundreds of kilometres east, towards the Baltics, Kaliningrad and Belarus. This means that the frontline (once played by Germany, the Low Countries, etc.) is now principally being played by Poland. I would argue that these countries, the UK included, shouldn't fund large conventional armies because they don't really need to.

Instead the focus should be on having a mix of forces, with heavier forces forward deployed to Central Poland. I think the idea of NATO Battlegroups with rotational commands should be continued and enhanced. The rapid build-up of forces in the area showed that they have merit, in my opinion. I think forward deploying "heavy" forces, with Challenger 3s and Ajax to Central Poland, alongside other NATO forces would be quite beneficial to the British Army. I do agree that 148 MBTs is not good, but if one is to increase numbers, is the answer necessarily MBTs? I would argue that there is room for a new type of force, a "medium" one, principally armed with Boxers. The advantage of using Boxers is that they can more or less self-deploy, and would have a much more limited logistics tail compared to heavier forces. These would be ideal as a mobile reserve, with some deployed to Poland or the Baltics, and the rest remaining in the UK for rapid response. These would be further complemented by "light" forces, which would mainly focus on rapid intervention to trouble spots all over the world. Reserves can also be integrated into these to form a sort of Gendarmarie or Carabanieri, similar to what was suggested above. Within these reserves there can also be integrated some better trained units which can do counter-SOF/counterterrorism to a degree, and in wartime can either be deployed around the UK, or as a mobile reserve elsewhere. Ideally, such forces would also be air-mobile, potentially even by helicopter.

The use of such forces would require more transport aircraft. Perhaps the Voyagers not in use with the RAF and leased to civilian needs can instead be put forward for a NATO-led strategic airlift/tanker capacity, so they get some use out of them.

Hood said:
The RAF is now down to 5 main operational airfields spread across the UK, there is the HQ at High Wycombe and the Air and Space Warfare Centre at Waddington.
The RN is now down to two major operational ports Devonport/Portsmouth and Clyde. HQ is in Portsmouth.
The national HQ is Northwood, north-west London.
Click to expand...
This could potentially be seen as an advantage, as while that is fewer places to attack, it also means fewer places to defend, and it can make hardening defences around those areas much easier. Firstly, I would personally begin building hardened-aircraft shelters. I think in the era of long-ranged munitions and FPV drones, I think its borderline unacceptable to leave aircraft in the open. I would also increase anti-drone protection around these areas, and slowly start increasing air defence capabilities over time. I don't think that stuffing airfields full of missiles is necessary at all, but perhaps a couple of ABM systems around the country with wide area coverage could be enough? Iron Dome is far from necessary, and at this point it's just being used as a buzz-phrase for anything related to integrated air defence.

I would like to hear your thoughts about this, as I'm certain that some mistakes have been made in my judgement, or maybe I wasn't clear in my explanation, I apologise if that is the case. I do understand that implementing such policies would be quite challenging as well.
 
zen said:
The threat of rockets and bombs is now far more likely to be launched from much closer to where Mordaunt lives and works....
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm being dense. Can you spell this out for a confused American?
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
Firstly, I would personally begin building hardened-aircraft shelters. I think in the era of long-ranged munitions and FPV drones, I think its borderline unacceptable to leave aircraft in the open.
Click to expand...
Most RAF airfields were hardened during the Cold War, not sure what construction has taken place since then though. What seemed survivable in 1975 or 1985 might not be today.
 
Hood said:
Most RAF airfields were hardened during the Cold War, not sure what construction has taken place since then though. What seemed survivable in 1975 or 1985 might not be today.
Click to expand...
For the 3 Wedgetails, I think I'll repeat that, for the 3 Wedgetails, 3 HAS, and maybe even 3 more at remote bases, wouldn't break the bank, would it? And a few for the P8 fleet, again spread out. The existing small HAS are fine for Typhoon and F35, plus alternate bases, and weapons stashes. Maybe even 3-4 at Brize for the A400?

As to the Air defence, the logic thus far, is that any enemy would have to come a long way, past a lot of our friends. But I'd still like to see 2-3 areas protected, London, East Anglia and the Scottish bases would be a good starting point. The Navy can cover South Coast. Against a madman/terrorist level this would be a good start, and build skills, and you can loan the kit to our friends, in 'hotter' areas of the World.
 
Hood said:
Most RAF airfields were hardened during the Cold War, not sure what construction has taken place since then though. What seemed survivable in 1975 or 1985 might not be today.
Click to expand...
Quite true, though to be quite honest I think some anti-drone structures may be enough. Drones are easily accessible and rather hard to counter at the moment, investment should be in passive forms of defence until there are more active means. Missiles are still challenging to deal with of course, but the threats can be countered through more conventional means.
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
Quite true, though to be quite honest I think some anti-drone structures may be enough. Drones are easily accessible and rather hard to counter at the moment, investment should be in passive forms of defence until there are more active means. Missiles are still challenging to deal with of course, but the threats can be countered through more conventional means.
Click to expand...
The laser dragonfire might be ideal, 2-3 per location. Good job for reserve forces too.
 
A facility in France called EPURE, which British and French authorities operate together, will also support the A21's development.
Click to expand...
Now that's interesting!
 
From the strategic perspective. The UK's interests have best been served through most of it's existence of the last 317 years by relatively small Armies able to tip the balance in continental conflicts. This due to being able to plant such forces where it best suits UK objectives and to choose such locations and timing.

Such ability is deeply tied to the transportation capability for such forces.

No opposing army can plant itself upon UK soil without first crossing the sea. As long as the UK can control and dominate that sea. The skies above now become as important as the seas beneath.

So obviously first secure the forces to secure those seas and skies.
This is why the RN gained such expenditure on it's assets.

Such assets as deliver such control and domination are intrinsically mobile. They can be moved to effect such control elsewhere if need be, putting an opponent in the disturbing position of finding the UK could block their access to other seas and the skies over other states.

This makes alliance with the UK attractive and betrayal of that alliance risks the UK withdraw it's assets.

By contrast a large standing army ties the UK into an alliance with the states between that army's location and the UK. That army is difficult to emplace, and difficult to withdraw. Either movement taking much time...
 
Hood said:
There is the rub, what exactly do you protect with a SAM/ABM system?
Pretty early on in the 1950s the AAA sites were reduced to those around London and some of the major industrial areas in the Midlands. ROTOR and all radar systems since then have concentrated on the east coast and Scotland. The Bloodhound defences were limited to the V-Bomber bases - which incidentally provided a SAM belt against anyone trying to bomb the south coming in over the southern North Sea. Since the 1970s Rapiers provided point-defence for RAF airfields.
Post-Strath Report in 1955 basically in H-Bomb WW3 everywhere else was written off. Then there were model scenarios of half a dozen H-Bombs exploded along the western coastline would irradiate the majority of Britain due to the prevailing winds. Then of course came Soviet SLBMs which could come in via the back door.

The RAF is now down to 5 main operational airfields spread across the UK, there is the HQ at High Wycombe and the Air and Space Warfare Centre at Waddington.
The RN is now down to two major operational ports Devonport/Portsmouth and Clyde. HQ is in Portsmouth.
The national HQ is Northwood, north-west London.

I suppose the most likely choice would be a couple of Aegis Ashore installations on the east coast (Norfolk and Aberdeenshire?), but their usefulness against hypersonic targets and incoming warheads would be open to question.
Your archetypal bad guy dictator would probably want to flatten London but if only London was defended, the rest of the country would be annoyed/complain about the cost and need.
Click to expand...
I was actually thinking 3 Aegis Ashore or equivalent radar sets down the east coast of England (one up in Scotland, one roughly at the east end of Hadrian's Wall, and one at the southeast corner of the country), one at the Southwest corner (Cornwall? I'm not familiar with the regional names), and one in Northern Ireland that you ask the Republic to contribute some funds to since it's also covering them.

Whether there are many missiles at each site is a different discussion. I'm assuming that there will always be some there to protect the radars, but not many. The intercept geometries just don't work for hypersonic defenses to be anywhere but at the likely target sites, but SM3 class ABMs can be in more/different places. Including out at sea on some former oil rigs, just to get the things off land so you don't have to worry about dropping a booster on somone's head.

How to keep people from losing their minds if they're not protected against hypersonics is probably best done by not mentioning where those defenses are physically located, so they assume that the Aegis Ashore base 100mi away is doing it.


Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
Instead the focus should be on having a mix of forces, with heavier forces forward deployed to Central Poland. I think the idea of NATO Battlegroups with rotational commands should be continued and enhanced. The rapid build-up of forces in the area showed that they have merit, in my opinion. I think forward deploying "heavy" forces, with Challenger 3s and Ajax to Central Poland, alongside other NATO forces would be quite beneficial to the British Army. I do agree that 148 MBTs is not good, but if one is to increase numbers, is the answer necessarily MBTs? I would argue that there is room for a new type of force, a "medium" one, principally armed with Boxers. The advantage of using Boxers is that they can more or less self-deploy, and would have a much more limited logistics tail compared to heavier forces. These would be ideal as a mobile reserve, with some deployed to Poland or the Baltics, and the rest remaining in the UK for rapid response. These would be further complemented by "light" forces, which would mainly focus on rapid intervention to trouble spots all over the world. Reserves can also be integrated into these to form a sort of Gendarmarie or Carabanieri, similar to what was suggested above. Within these reserves there can also be integrated some better trained units which can do counter-SOF/counterterrorism to a degree, and in wartime can either be deployed around the UK, or as a mobile reserve elsewhere. Ideally, such forces would also be air-mobile, potentially even by helicopter.
Click to expand...
That's basically the US Stryker concept. Stryker units have more infantry bodies than the heavy brigades do, so they're better for holding terrain, and fast enough to go blasting up the autobahn to where they're needed. Not as good off road, of course, but that's the tradeoff you need to make.


Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
The use of such forces would require more transport aircraft. Perhaps the Voyagers not in use with the RAF and leased to civilian needs can instead be put forward for a NATO-led strategic airlift/tanker capacity, so they get some use out of them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the problem with modern MRAP wheeled vehicles is that they don't fit into a C130 anymore, they're generally too tall. Hydropneumatic suspension systems may help this, but that's an extra cost option.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I was actually thinking 3 Aegis Ashore or equivalent radar sets down the east coast of England (one up in Scotland, one roughly at the east end of Hadrian's Wall, and one at the southeast corner of the country), one at the Southwest corner (Cornwall? I'm not familiar with the regional names), and one in Northern Ireland that you ask the Republic to contribute some funds to since it's also covering them
Click to expand...

In a way we already have 1 AEGIS Ashore....

The BAE MISC on Portsdown Hill above Portsmouth....the MISC (Maritime Integration and Support Centre) is a Type 45 on land, The full S1850M and Sampson radar set and PAAMS combat system.....

maps.app.goo.gl

50°51'23.4"N 1°05'24.0"W

maps.app.goo.gl maps.app.goo.gl

Install a set of Sylver VLS at that site with the Aster 30 Block 1 NT that we're getting and you've just provided coverage over a key naval base and a good chunk of southern England on the cheap...


Its a pity we scrapped the Longbow Trials Barge after removing all the gear...we could have moored it in the Thames Estuary and achieved a similar effect...she was old though, she was used for SeaWolf trials before being refitted for PAAMS.

 
Scott Kenny said:
That's basically the US Stryker concept. Stryker units have more infantry bodies than the heavy brigades do, so they're better for holding terrain, and fast enough to go blasting up the autobahn to where they're needed. Not as good off road, of course, but that's the tradeoff you need to make.
Click to expand...
Yes, in fact that sort of served as an inspiration for it, though I forgot to mention it in the post. I think some lessons can also be taken from the Japanese and Italians, the latter of whom have used vehicles such as Freccia and Centauro for a while, and employ them to great effect.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-X-dDc5xNw&ab_channel=BattleOrder


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuEJGyHrSlM&ab_channel=BattleOrder


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGKHiqjaa6Y&ab_channel=BattleOrder
 
TinWing said:
I’d suggest that the UK should be able to field a pair of Commando Brigades. With the ridiculously low number of tanks planned, the UK might as well donate the balance of the Challengers, upgraded or not, and leave MBT capabilities to the Poles who will be fielding 1,000 MBTs. As to the balance of land forces, support units aside, train them as a Gendarmerie for humanitarian and UN interventions. Italy’s Carabinieri and Spain’s Guardia Civil are very useful organizations without direct parallels in the English speaking world.

The UK really doesn’t need to plan for “all out conflicts.” If there is a direct war between any of the 3 Super Powers in the world, it will go strategic very quickly. Only Trident will be of any use whatsoever, and even then, it will be only be a small contribution to this world ending scenario.

Everyone is still overexcited by the current confict. In reality, conscription based attritional warfare is only possible is in less developed countries. In an affluent multiethnic society, young people aren’t going to be conscripted for dated concepts of ethnic nationalism. The current war even contains elements of sectarian conflict between rival orthodox patriarchs, who excommunicate each other as if it was still the 11th century. This is not the future but a reflection of two backward, underdeveloped societies.
Click to expand...
Ass a Finn, I would argue your point about young people in a multiethnic (Finland itself was already multiethnic before increasing immigration in the late 20th century as the main components of our population are Finns and Swedish-speaking Finns, with Eastern Finns and Western Finns being rather different in many ways, and a large aboriginal Sámi population in Northern Lapland, and also rather significant Karelian and Tatar minorities in some parts of the country) affluent society not being ready to be conscripted to defend their country in "ethnonationalistic" terms is rather inaccurate. In Finland, about 80 % of the young population is ready to take up arms to defend their country, conscription rates are high (we still have universal male conscription, and an ever increasing amount of women are serving as volunteers) and the country has a trained reserve of 900 000 and a wartime strength of ca. 300 000 from a population of mere 5,5 million. This readiness to defend Finland is also high amongst the immigrant population with military service being held in high regard amongst young Somali, Kurds, Arabs, Turks etc. Most of the males in my social circles have also served, and I would say that being a student of humanities with an intercultural background from the capital, my circles are amongst the most liberal and cosmopolitan in Finland. What seems to motivate even young and left-leaning liberal Finns to serve is the awareness of what would be at stake were Finland ever invaded. I also know many Ukrainians of my age and younger (I'll be 28 this summer), and their world views are very similar to most European youth of their age. Despite all this they are mostly ready to go to the front if called to do so. So, in general, I would say even very developed societies are ready to go to very great lengths in the face of an existential threat to their livelihoods.
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
Yes, in fact that sort of served as an inspiration for it, though I forgot to mention it in the post. I think some lessons can also be taken from the Japanese and Italians, the latter of whom have used vehicles such as Freccia and Centauro for a while, and employ them to great effect.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that it does. They use the wheeled TD's primarily due to the mountainous geography of both nations. Great for defence in their particular circumstances, but I'm not sure that would be of use for the UK. The French AMX-10RC hasn't had the best of times in Ukraine. Centauro and Type 16 are undoubtedly better, but I'm not sure they would have put on a massively better showing.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom