Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

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.
 
Topi said:
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.
Click to expand...
The trick is getting people in the UK seeing a Russian attack on Finland or Poland as an existential threat to the UK.
 
timmymagic said:
Centauro and Type 16 are undoubtedly better, but I'm not sure they would have put on a massively better showing.
Click to expand...
I'm of the opinion that the UK would probably have to create its own unique doctrine, similar to the Stryker brigades, except using Boxers. I'm not sure how the Boxer compares to the Centauro/Freccia or Type 16. It would have to have doctrine written around it specifically in order for it to work. But some middle-ground in the British Army is necessary, if it wants to make the absolute best use of its resources with the limits imposed on it.
 
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...
Additional passive defences are surprisingly cheap, US and South Korea recently hardened as base for about $130 million.
 
Topi said:
awareness of what would be at stake
Click to expand...
This is probably a major difference. Finland has a long land border with a neighbour which has a history of putting its troops on the other side of its borders, and (from what I can tell) a pretty positive view of its armed forces. The UK has a short land border with Ireland, and a generation of young people raised on the idea that wars are fought so billionaires can make money at the expense of the lives of disadvantaged people.

When there was even a suggestion that the UK might need to think about conscription, the response of young Britons was to work out how to get exempted rather than be sent off to war. That might change - but for now, the UK population doesn't view war as an existential threat, or even much of a threat at all.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Additional passive defences are surprisingly cheap, US and South Korea recently hardened as base for about $130 million.
Click to expand...

I'd question either how much hardening they needed to actually do, or to what degree for that budget. A properly equipped HAS with associated crew/ground facilities is serious money...

The problem we have is that a lot of the bases that were significantly hardened were let go. Including the most 'hardened' (Alconbury, Upper Heyford, Bentwaters). We've got Lossiemouth, Coningsby and Marham with HAS, but not for all the aircraft stationed there....with Leeming used only occasionally. Woodbridge exists as an MoD facility with HAS, but I suspect they haven't been maintained in years.

The one sensible thing we did, to a degree at least, was move the Army back fom Germany to new facilities on old airbases. But....we should have continued to maintain the aviation facilities there at a low level so they were available in time of war without signicant reconstruction (the RAF have used Kinloss recently whilst Lossie's runway had work, but you have to wonder how long Kinloss will remain usable without investment). Pity we didn't move the Army onto some of the USAFE superbases and retain that infrastructure...

Plus we're now building large, single point of failure, unhardened infrastructure (see the A-400, P-8, E-7 and F-35 facilities at Brize, Lossiemouth and Marham respectively, all very recently constructed).

We also ignore the really easy, proven to work and cheap solutions....where are all the Typhoon decoys? The MoD contracted a UK company to make realistic F-35 ground handling replicas for the training school at Culdrose....they built 4-5 which are in use every day....would it have been beyond the wit of man to purchase another 20 for Marham?

www.gateguardsuk.com

F-35 Lightning

The Latest Fighter We dont just create historical aircraft replicas, we also pride ourselves on being one of the only companies with the moulds and experience to create a realistic replica of the S…
www.gateguardsuk.com www.gateguardsuk.com

Building a revetment with HESCO or Texas barriers, installing pylons to cover with camouflage/anti-drone nets...all low cost...but zero interest.

I'm afraid MoD and RAF have got very, very complacent...
 
timmymagic said:
Woodbridge exists as an MoD facility with HAS, but I suspect they haven't been maintained in years.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember the former nuclear weapon bunkers appeared on the TV programme Abandoned Engineering so not totally hopeful about the rest of the site.

timmymagic said:
We also ignore the really easy, proven to work and cheap solutions....where are all the Typhoon decoys? The MoD contracted a UK company to make realistic F-35 ground handling replicas for the training school at Culdrose....they built 4-5 which are in use every day....would it have been beyond the wit of man to purchase another 20 for Marham?
Click to expand...
A plastic decoy might fool an optical camera but it wouldn't fool an IR sensor (reflectivity, hot fuel tanks, heat 'stains' on the apron etc.).
Plus most active aircraft would be inside a HAS as you point out (availability of HAS allowing of course), so visual decoy make no sense in that regard. Plus you need dummy ground equipment to really stage a convincing scene.

The RAF looked into this in the late 1970s and came to the conclusion that it just wasn't worth the cost (at least back then when they still had surplus Lightnings). I suppose they could use the Tranche 1 Typhoons once they are stripped out, but I don't really see it as a pressing need. There are much more pressing defence needs.
 
Hood said:
A plastic decoy might fool an optical camera but it wouldn't fool an IR sensor (reflectivity, hot fuel tanks, heat 'stains' on the apron etc.).
Plus most active aircraft would be inside a HAS as you point out (availability of HAS allowing of course), so visual decoy make no sense in that regard. Plus you need dummy ground equipment to really stage a convincing scene.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of decoys that create the correct IR signature by the use of heaters.

Plus there are only 24 HAS at Marham...some aircraft have to be elsewhere, and that problem is growing. They've installed a long flightline shelter. Decoys would work very well under that. But more importanty in time of war they'd be really useful at dispersals and creating false targets.
 
timmymagic said:
There are plenty of decoys that create the correct IR signature by the use of heaters.

Plus there are only 24 HAS at Marham...some aircraft have to be elsewhere, and that problem is growing. They've installed a long flightline shelter. Decoys would work very well under that. But more importanty in time of war they'd be really useful at dispersals and creating false targets.
Click to expand...
But if we’re at war is Marham of much relevance for the F-35…?

We dont have enough people to support the actual jets, let alone add fake ones.

The best way to track air activities would be mobile phone and social media data of its associated ground personnel. Wherever they are is wherever the jets are. If they’re silent they’re busy…

The Ukrainians had a lot of success tracking Rhssian troop concentrations from their phones, even down to when to hit somewhere (command conferences and bridge crossings).
Scott Kenny said:
Remember, this is combat search and rescue, where speed is critical.
Click to expand...
The ability to drop people on the ground and pick them up is far, far more critical.
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interesting, but nobody is going to revist the utter nightmare that was defeloping and certifying the Osprey. That’d be madder than doing it in the first place.
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hmm they absolutley wanted something and wrote documents to show that, but they definitely didnt absolutely need it.

The lesson of that crisis and attempt was act earlier to avoid the potential and then just dont try and do that.
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
Grew up listening to these echoing across the fields. Their noise do indeed travel much further as you never heard a Puma or a Wessex. Otoh they can be hard to pin to a specific direction.
Scott Kenny said:
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.
Click to expand...
Faster than an Apache too, often left them behind in Afghan. Plus big and have proved battleworthy.

V22 is something that should have been strangled at conception, lives and billions saved for an absolutley marginal benefit that in no way makes any kind of cost benefit sense. Makes you feel sick when you’re in the back and the best moment is getting out. H-60 orders of magnitude cheaper and perfectly adequate. Afterall, they got to OBL as the “SF raid of this century so far”

Otoh, Merlin is also bit of a mess, completely unsuited to the battlefield, ludicrous 3 engine setup and a transmission that grossly limits its potential. If you’re a frigate with one cab then it’ll be airborne on blue moon only days.

Plus having been under one many times at sea, no more suited to CSAR than V22 or CH47 for downwash frankly. Indeed we drop it over (non known actively hostile) targets precisely to smash them about with its downwash as a distraction whilst the RIBs get the bootnecks the last few 10s of metres. Fundamental problem of a heavier thing with Sea King disc/blade constraints.
 
Purpletrouble said:
V22 is something that should have been strangled at conception, lives and billions saved for an absolutley marginal benefit that in no way makes any kind of cost benefit sense.
Click to expand...
The people that used them in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed to love them. As soon as the Generals figured out what an Osprey could do, they got super heavily tasked.

Bluntly, it's a 275knot-cruise VTOL that can fly ~800nmi on internal fuel at 275knots. 390 out, 390 back.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The people that used them in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed to love them.
Click to expand...
I didnt and I dont know anyone who did!
Scott Kenny said:
As soon as the Generals figured out what an Osprey could do, they got super heavily tasked.
Click to expand...
As did every single helicopter out there.
Scott Kenny said:
Bluntly, it's a 275knot-cruise VTOL that can fly ~800nmi on internal fuel at 275knots. 390 out, 390 back.
Click to expand...
But has a horrible safety record and they’re bigger numbers than a helo but less than a C130, there is no ordained reason that this is a necessary sweet spot just because it exists.

Jack of all trades master of none, absolutely useful for niche occasions but at truly absurd cost - the money spent on V22 could have bough the marines several H60/folding H47/H53/H64/C130 fleets and the excess running costs of V22 have to come from somewhere else. Have to hand it to the USMC for getting their way but to me it shows how pet projects can badly distort things.

I also just dont beleive it is inherantly safe enough.

Its a bit like the escort cruiser to me. Want fast transit use a transport ac. Want VL use a helicopter. A modern Caribou equivalent would do more further faster and would need very little ground to operate from. Hell its usable payload is more like Twin Otter and many of those can land on water which V22 cant.

But despite all that, my fantasy RAF has a SF sqn of them because unarguably they are cool ;-)
 
Purpletrouble said:
But has a horrible safety record
Click to expand...
It has a lower accident rate than every helicopter by a very large margin.



Purpletrouble said:
Jack of all trades master of none, absolutely useful for niche occasions but at truly absurd cost - the money spent on V22 could have bough the marines several H60/folding H47/H53/H64/C130 fleets and the excess running costs of V22 have to come from somewhere else. Have to hand it to the USMC for getting their way but to me it shows how pet projects can badly distort things.
Click to expand...
Like the UK, the USMC uses a ~24pax "helicopter" for most of their troop hauling. It can carry 2 squads of 13 and their gear. Before the Osprey it was the H46 Sea Knight, H47's baby brother.

The USMC only sends 3-4 UH1s out with a MEU. Basically, the only parts of the MEU that use UH1s are the medics and the Recon folks.

Chinooks are the same size as an H53E.

H64s require a lot of expensive waterproofing, while twin Hueys and Sea Cobras were actually designed as marinized corrosion protected aircraft (see the difference between the UK and US versions, and the complaints about the lacking corrosion protection on the UK Apaches!)

A C130 cannot land on an LHA. It's a very snug fit on a ship 200ft longer! The USMC still operates 70x KC130s, however.



Purpletrouble said:
I also just dont beleive it is inherantly safe enough.
Click to expand...
Then you are lettings your feelings override the facts that it has an accident rate far below that of the safest helicopters.

The statistics don't lie.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It has a lower accident rate than every helicopter by a very large margin.
Click to expand...
That is entirely contrary to the data Ive seen which puts it more than double.
Scott Kenny said:
Like the UK, the USMC uses a ~24pax "helicopter" for most of their troop hauling. It can carry 2 squads of 13 and their gear. Before the Osprey it was the H46 Sea Knight, H47's baby brother.
Click to expand...
Very very rarely does any 24 pax helicopter carry 24. Very few V22 flights will have 2 sqauds. Its largely irrelvent to compare helos to tactical ground organisations.

All my flights over Afghan in C130s had less than 10 people and 2 small pallets. These were just regular A to B flights. Likewise my helo flights have been a similar fraction of nominal payload. These things spend most of their lives half to nearly empty, and that was on ops!

I cannot inagine how sht it must be to be one of 26 people plus kit in that thing. In fact I just dont believe it.

Scott Kenny said:
The USMC only sends 3-4 UH1s out with a MEU. Basically, the only parts of the MEU that use UH1s are the medics and the Recon folks.
Click to expand...
At least you dont have Wildcat though so thank your lucky stars.
Scott Kenny said:
Chinooks are the same size as an H53E.
Click to expand...
Merlin takes the same footprint. Carries far less. Hence why not wanted on battlefield.
Scott Kenny said:
H64s require a lot of expensive waterproofing, while twin Hueys and Sea Cobras were actually designed as marinized corrosion protected aircraft (see the difference between the UK and US versions, and the complaints about the lacking corrosion protection on the UK Apaches!)
Click to expand...
You could have fixed that for a fraction of V22 spend.
Scott Kenny said:
A C130 cannot land on an LHA. It's a very snug fit on a ship 200ft longer! The USMC still operates 70x KC130s, however.
Click to expand...
You dont need to. Got something big/heavy, sling it under a 53.
Scott Kenny said:
Then you are lettings your feelings override the facts that it has an accident rate far below that of the safest helicopters.

The statistics don't lie.
Click to expand...
I think you might need to source that.

Data I found shows a class A mishap of 3.1/100,000 flight hours.

Nearly double the Army and Air Force averages although comparable with rest of USMC.

Given that includes AV8 and CV flying its not a great indicator for the V22 and USMC. Having seen all US services in the flesh I personally believe the USMC is deficient in safety full stop. The stats seem to back that up.
 
WatcherZero said:
Well the rumour had been that Britain wanted a stealthy subsonic FC/ASW variant to enter service around 2028 while France wanted a hypersonic variant to enter service a couple of years later. News today is Britain wants to rapidly develop its own Hypersonic weapon for 2030 (though they could be complementary). The interesting thing is the project is being led by The Central Staff rather than one of the service branches. There has been a lot of Hypersonics work going on in the UK behind the curtains (along with the HyShot program 20 years ago) and this news today is consistent with the report last year that Britain had set aside £1bn for funding three hypersonic projects; a joint hypersonic glide vehicle with AUKUS partners, the collaborative work with France and a homegrown project (also the separate hypersonic aircraft demonstrator).

www.telegraph.co.uk

Britain to deploy homegrown hypersonic missile by 2030

UK military chiefs want to catch up with China, Russia and the US
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
 
Purpletrouble said:
That is entirely contrary to the data Ive seen which puts it more than double.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, the V-22 had dismal accident rates when it was introduced, partly because the first units converted from fixed-wing aircraft and the pilots had little-to-no rotary wing experience. In the hover and transition, the V-22 handles a lot more like a helicopter. When the USMC started putting helicopter pilots in it, the accident rate went well doen.
Purpletrouble said:
Given that includes AV8 and CV flying its not a great indicator for the V22 and USMC. Having seen all US services in the flesh I personally believe the USMC is deficient in safety full stop. The stats seem to back that up.
Click to expand...
Well quite. If the accident rate is comparable to the rest of the USMC, and you feel their safety isn't up to your standards, it may not be reasonable to single out the V-22. Do your statistics extend to the USAF's V-22s?
 
Yellow Palace said:
AFAIK, the V-22 had dismal accident rates when it was introduced, partly because the first units converted from fixed-wing aircraft and the pilots had little-to-no rotary wing experience. In the hover and transition, the V-22 handles a lot more like a helicopter. When the USMC started putting helicopter pilots in it, the accident rate went well doen.
Click to expand...
But can anyone document that? It doesnt make a lot of sense given they were drawing down CH46 units and posting new pilots in. Where did all this fixed wing people supposedly come from?
Yellow Palace said:
Well quite. If the accident rate is comparable to the rest of the USMC, and you feel their safety isn't up to your standards, it may not be reasonable to single out the V-22. Do your statistics extend to the USAF's V-22s?
Click to expand...
Given they’ve 100s and 100s of of them their stats will be interlinked surely? Iirc the USAF were commensurate with their own average.

And twice the US Army stats with rotorcraft?

The thing is less safe, its a fact. Maybe the benefit is worth that cost, but probably not to the people who pay it.
 
An interesting development...

For those that don't know. Thorney Island is an old NAS around 8 miles directly due east of HMNB Portsmouth. It's the main British Army base for its AD units, including the Land Ceptor batteries.


www.thetimes.co.uk

Army tests ‘Ocean’s Eleven weapon’ to knock out enemy electricity

Project Ealing uses radio frequencies to override and disrupt circuits and could be used to disable drones while a laser weapon could be ready to deploy by 2027
www.thetimes.co.uk www.thetimes.co.uk

https://twitter.com/x/status/1787949357754351808
View: https://twitter.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1787949357754351808
 
One of the key moments of the Blair government was its Strategic Defence Review (SDR) which before Gordon Brown knifed it was the most detailed attempt since 1966 to reset Britain's defence priorities to its commitments and foreign policy.
The incoming Starmer government is likely to attempt something similar against a much weaker economy and a deteriorating international situation.
Some questions I would ask if I were the new Defence Secretary:

What nuclear weapons does the UK need and can it afford them?

What roles are unavoidable for the three services? Do some roles need to be re-allocated or dropped altogether?

Should or could the UK restore industrial capacities to support its Defence policy?

Given the demographics and makeup of the UK population of age for military service what can be done to recruit the numbers we need and look after them properly?
 
uk 75 said:
What nuclear weapons does the UK need and can it afford them?
Click to expand...
We're at the bare minimum if not below and the cheapest capability for the most valued Deterrent possible. The only logical way beyond that is expansion of numbers and systems.
uk 75 said:
What roles are unavoidable for the three services? Do some roles need to be re-allocated or dropped altogether?
Click to expand...
The bare minimum is the Army being able to deploy internally to oppose landings and externally to keep opponents on the back foot.
The Navy must secure control over the seas around the UK and Airforce must support that as well as control the skies not only over the UK, but the seas around the UK.
The more such forces can extend control further out and over other territories, the greater the value to allies and the greater the threat to opponents.
uk 75 said:
Should or could the UK restore industrial capacities to support its Defence policy?
Click to expand...
Yes. Domestic supply of basic elements is essential.
Steel and New steel manufacture is necessary.
uk 75 said:
Given the demographics and makeup of the UK population of age for military service what can be done to recruit the numbers we need and look after them properly?
Click to expand...
Difficult territory and options be controversial.
Military service must recruit loyal (to the UK) members of the population.
This can of worms may be too political for this site and different views be highly likely to offend.
We now live in a country where quoting the Office of National Statistics can be considered 'far right' and subject to coercion by state apparatus.
 
zen said:
Difficult territory and options be controversial.
Military service must recruit loyal (to the UK) members of the population.
Click to expand...
I’ve always thought that military service should guarantee citizenship to migrants, or potential migrants, that pass security clearances.

However, given that such clearances will probably now be processed by AI, I have little hope we’d recruit/maintain anyone.
 
A short blog I found that breaks down the numbers and why it simply won't work. There's a huge shortfall in beds and barracks for them all, let alone paying them or even training them.
thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com

National Service Numbers - An Objective Analysis of Costs

A blog about UK defence issues which tries to put a positive and fresh look at many current matters impacting UK and wider defence.
thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom