Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

Sending Rishi out in the pouring rain without a brolly, announcing National Service without the facilties.....you have really got the wonder what the fuck is going in in Number 10.............have they all had a bloody labotomy???
 
The living knowledge and infrastructure for National Service doesn't exist and it doesn't make sense to confine it to 30,000 when over 300,000 young men will turn 18 this year.
But D.Sandys was correct to scrap National Service for a professional military.

There is an argument for militia. But this treads on certain sacred cows....
Even though strictly speaking the foundation of the constitution is the 1688 Bill of Rights.....
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not if it's 2yrs of work in a hospital or similar.
Click to expand...
It's 1 weekend a month of unpaid work.

Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Defence minister ruled out return of National Service day after election called

Andrew Murrison told a Tory MP it would not be introduced ‘in any form’ as it would damage morale and discipline
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
That's the problem with democracy. Tell people you're bringing back national service and nobody in that age range will vote for you. The mistake was getting rid of it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
The whole thing is unravelling, but anyway the its academic and given the likely outcome of the election we'd probably have a more profitable time discussing the policies of the Monster Raving Loony Party.

www.theguardian.com

Rishi Sunak’s national service pledge is ‘bonkers’, says ex-military chief

Criticism of proposed scheme comes as another blow to the party’s struggling election campaign
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Forest Green said:
It's 1 weekend a month of unpaid work.
Click to expand...
1 weekend a month for one year - how anyone would learn enough or be competent enough to become a "special constable, RNLI volunteer, or NHS responder" for just 24 days. The NHS would probably love 300,000 extra staff, but probably not just on the weekends...

Basic army military training takes 13 weeks. Basic RAF and RN training is 10 weeks.
Reservist training takes about five weekends or one 8 day course plus a 15.5-day battle camp.

There is a similar existing scheme, the Army Foundation College at Harrogate does junior soldier training for 16-17 year olds in 20 or 40 week courses (infantry and armoured recruits take the 40 week course). They get paid £800 monthly for the first 6 months, increasing to £1,000 thereafter.

So based on this its probable they could easily train up these recruits within 10-13 weeks, giving them some semblance of semi-trained manpower for the remaining 40 weeks of the year (minus leave). But being only for one year it would be a constant churn of training and people moving on. Some might stay in but a lot wouldn't.

Actually there is a flaw that I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on yet - the implicit class distinction going on. Most sixth-formers would still be finishing A-Levels (or whatever they're called this week) and of course would go on to university when they are 18. So anyone taking the military option would have to effectively take a gap year, which automatically makes the one weekend a month option the more attractive. For the kids who drop out after GCSEs at 16 (full time education until 18 is still the current government goal I believe), are available as cheap cannon fodder for the full year...
 
Hood said:
The whole thing is unravelling, but anyway the its academic and given the likely outcome of the election we'd probably have a more profitable time discussing the policies of the Monster Raving Loony Party.
Click to expand...
I doubt even the Monster Raving Loony Party could inherit an economy with a debt of only 29% of GDP, a budget surplus and a trade surplus and destroy it in just 13 years (1997-2010), yet it's the party that did exactly that that's likely to get in again. Just imagine what they'll do with a struggling economy. :oops: After 13 years we'll probably want to deport ourselves to Rwanda.

United Kingdom Government Budget

The United Kingdom recorded a Government Budget deficit equal to 4.40 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2023. This page provides - United Kingdom Government Budget - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.
tradingeconomics.com tradingeconomics.com
1716882992775.png

United Kingdom Public Sector Net Debt to GDP

The United Kingdom recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 97.60 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2023. This page provides - United Kingdom Government Debt To GDP - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.
tradingeconomics.com tradingeconomics.com
1716883111200.png
Hood said:
www.theguardian.com

Rishi Sunak’s national service pledge is ‘bonkers’, says ex-military chief

Criticism of proposed scheme comes as another blow to the party’s struggling election campaign
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


1 weekend a month for one year - how anyone would learn enough or be competent enough to become a "special constable, RNLI volunteer, or NHS responder" for just 24 days. The NHS would probably love 300,000 extra staff, but probably not just on the weekends...

Basic army military training takes 13 weeks. Basic RAF and RN training is 10 weeks.
Reservist training takes about five weekends or one 8 day course plus a 15.5-day battle camp.

There is a similar existing scheme, the Army Foundation College at Harrogate does junior soldier training for 16-17 year olds in 20 or 40 week courses (infantry and armoured recruits take the 40 week course). They get paid £800 monthly for the first 6 months, increasing to £1,000 thereafter.

So based on this its probable they could easily train up these recruits within 10-13 weeks, giving them some semblance of semi-trained manpower for the remaining 40 weeks of the year (minus leave). But being only for one year it would be a constant churn of training and people moving on. Some might stay in but a lot wouldn't.

Actually there is a flaw that I'm surprised that nobody has picked up on yet - the implicit class distinction going on. Most sixth-formers would still be finishing A-Levels (or whatever they're called this week) and of course would go on to university when they are 18. So anyone taking the military option would have to effectively take a gap year, which automatically makes the one weekend a month option the more attractive. For the kids who drop out after GCSEs at 16 (full time education until 18 is still the current government goal I believe), are available as cheap cannon fodder for the full year...
Click to expand...
Send someone in for the weekend and you've basically just lost actual NHS members for that day because they'll have to effectively train them.

They should just send able-bodied unemployed people into national service after 6 months signing on.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Mistake giving them the community service option.
Click to expand...
The whole plan is a terrible mistake at a time when the opposition is talking about extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds. Community service as an option is meant to minimize the appearance of non-compliance. The reality is that most 18 year olds are unfit for compulsory military service the vast majority of physically and mentally fit candidates are disinclined to serve. As it is, 30,000 inductees serving for one year is an expensive and cumbersome solution to recruitment shortfalls. Just what percentage do they think will subsequently enlist because that is the only potential payoff from this entire doomed scheme?
 
TinWing said:
The whole plan is a terrible mistake at a time when the opposition is talking about extending voting to 16 and 17 year olds.
Click to expand...
Well that's just stupid. I knew FA about politics at that age, most normal 16-17 year-olds don't.
Community service as an option is meant to minimize the appearance of non-compliance. The reality is that most 18 year olds are unfit for compulsory military service the vast majority of physically and mentally fit candidates are disinclined to serve. As it is, 30,000 inductees serving for one year is an expensive and cumbersome solution to recruitment shortfalls. Just what percentage do they think will subsequently enlist because that is the only potential payoff from this entire doomed scheme?
Click to expand...
Maybe start paying tuition fees for service?
 
So one could go Starship Troopers (a.k.a Rome) "Service Guarantees Citizenship" and that would definitely encourage the young.
But the Left would oppose it on grounds of discrimination and the 'right' (also the left) would oppose it excluding the rich children from Citizenship.

Another option would be "if you want your education funded, serve first".
But considering the anti-british bias entrenched into the University System. It would pay more dividends to fund vocational education.
But then the University System needs comprehensive overhaul.

The most logical means to expand available personal and increase preparedness for conflicts AND domestic security....
Would be to rearm the 'loyal'
population.
People would flock to prove their loyalty and pay from their own pockets to arm themselves.
Shades of the old law on Archery.....

It certainly makes the US even more impossible to overthrow.
But the authoritarian and privileged elite fear both opposition to their policies and overthrow from the domestic population.
 
The university system is more pro-British than the current government, I can tell you that much. Certainly seems to view the British people with far less contempt.

Anyway if we're going to be talking about future British defence policy, it would be wise to look at what the Labour Party is saying, since they will be in government come July.
 
Disturbing possibilities lurk in Labour at moment. They didn't oppose National Service......

But I wouldn't put too much stock in electoral promises.
 
GTX said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Should the Royal Navy join the US in a very exclusive club? Good idea, but expensive

So expensive that even America is having to compromise
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
That's not entirely understanding why the US converted the first four Ohio-class boats into SSGNs.

By treaty, the USN had to reduce the number of deployed missile subs. Fair enough. But inspections on the Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia all showed that they had at least 20 years of hull life left. This left Big Navy wondering what to do with ships that were still in really good condition, just needing a reactor refueling.

And this is as the whole Global War on Terror is getting bigger than just the US stomping the crap out of Afghanistan. A huge % of the world's population lives within 100nmi of the coastline, something like 70%. Most of the State Sponsors of Terrorism are accessible from the ocean.

So the idea of being able to bring a whole SEAL platoon, all their extra gear, and be able to support them with Tomahawk etc strikes was very tempting, to say the least.

It did require the Russians to agree to accept the length of a missile tube as the difference between "strategic" and "tactical" though.

The Russians did agree, once the other part of the SSGN conversion was ripping out all of the dedicated Ballistic Missile command and control stuff. Nav Center and Missile Control Center were completely ripped out of the boats and replaced with ring laser gyro navigators and mission planning and prep spaces, so it'd take a major refit to reinstall the ESGNs and missile command and control gear into the SSGNs.

=========

Now, I expect that the USN is working on a Diver Lockout "quad-pack" for the replacement SSGN, and the Royal Navy could easily buy one for their SSGN. The RN is already buying the strategic quad-packs for the Dreadnought-class SSBNs.

I'm not sure that the USN will make Columbia-class SSGNs. Those are really big boats to take into shallow water, it'd be better to have one with 8-12 tubes instead of 16 tubes like the SSBNs. Whether to use 8 or 12 tubes depends on how often you expect to use dry deck shelters versus something like the ASDS. Dry deck shelters cover at least one missile tube over and above the lock-out tubes, so if you're going to carry DDS most of the time I'd want 12 tubes (well, 10 tubes for Tomahawks), since 4-6 will be covered by the DDS. That leaves 6-8 tubes full of Tomahawks etc.

Unless of course the USN sticks a missile compartment into the SSN(X) to make the SSGNs. In that case, I'd expect 8 tubes amidships and 2-4 forward, plus a ~50 weapon torpedo room.
 
GTX said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Should the Royal Navy join the US in a very exclusive club? Good idea, but expensive

So expensive that even America is having to compromise
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
The thinktank report behind this article is here: https://www.geostrategy.org.uk/app/...yal-Navy_-Sharpening-Britains-naval-power.pdf

I've only skimmed it, but there's only one paragraph in 48 pages talking about their proposed SSGN. It's also remarkably light on detail and doesn't amount to much more than 'fantasy fleets'.

From a deployability perspective, of course, one boat is functionally equivalent to no boats.
 
Yellow Palace said:
From a deployability perspective, of course, one boat is functionally equivalent to no boats.
Click to expand...
Yup, you'd want at least 3 and ideally more than 6. The RN has had at least one instance where all their SSNs were unable to go to sea. Two were in drydock, two were post-refit but unable to go to sea, and the two boats that were supposed to be at sea were broken.
 
Would replacing the eventual 7 Astutes with new SSGNs with 4 VPS modules gradually be much more expensive than just replacing them with new SSNs? I mean, isn't this just another case of CATOBAR carrier or STOVL carrier?
 
Forest Green said:
Would replacing the eventual 7 Astutes with new SSGNs with 4 VPS modules gradually be much more expensive than just replacing them with new SSNs? I mean, isn't this just another case of CATOBAR carrier or STOVL carrier?
Click to expand...

Think HI Sutton had a suggestion, albeit tongue in cheek, for the Vanguards to be retained, like the Ohio's. Particularly as 1 has had a new core fitted (which turned out to not be necessary...).

The RN actually refer's to the Astutes as SSGN already.

 
Scott Kenny said:
Yup, you'd want at least 3 and ideally more than 6.
Click to expand...
The logic is that it's a gap-filler between the DREADNOUGHT run and the ASTUTE replacement - which they say should run to 12 boats with VLS. Which is fair enough (totally unfunded, but the whole thing is a wish list), but one boat is still a very limited capability.

Aiming for three dedicated cruise missile boats and ten fleet boats would be the same number of hulls and a more viable fleet overall. Also a slightly longer buffer to figure out SSN-AUKUS.
timmymagic said:
The RN actually refer's to the Astutes as SSGN already.
Click to expand...
I tend to ignore the RN's use of USN hull classifications, because it's wildly idiosyncratic at best.
 
timmymagic said:
Think HI Sutton had a suggestion, albeit tongue in cheek, for the Vanguards to be retained, like the Ohio's. Particularly as 1 has had a new core fitted (which turned out to not be necessary...).
Click to expand...
Hrm... Yes, if they refueled the boats (or flat out replaced the reactor, whichever, but refueling would be significantly cheaper) it'd be okay. Depends on the condition of the hulls.

Like I'd said earlier, the Ohios still had 20 years of hull life left. Not sure how much the Vanguards will have when Dreadnoughts are in the fleet.

The conversion Mr. Sutton seems to be talking about is a pretty involved one, it looks like he's talking about cutting more than half the missile compartment out of the ship entirely and replacing it with a plug like the Jimmy Carter got. The Ohio conversions were nowhere near that complex! The only hull cuts the Ohios needed was for the refueling., everything else removed went out the oversized hatches from removing the escape trunks (which we did every refit, they're designed to be removable without cutting) Adding a plug is very involved, even if you technically aren't adding any length to the hull....



timmymagic said:
The RN actually refer's to the Astutes as SSGN already.
Click to expand...
By that standard, every US fast attack since the 688 should be called an SSGN, because they can shoot Tomahawks.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not sure how much the Vanguards will have when Dreadnoughts are in the fleet.
Click to expand...
Optimistically, about negative fifteen years based on the original design life. Depending on DREADNOUGHT entering service on the current 'early 2030s' timeline.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Optimistically, about negative fifteen years based on the original design life. Depending on DREADNOUGHT entering service on the current 'early 2030s' timeline.
Click to expand...
That's what I was afraid of. The Ohios were built for ~40 years design life with a midlife refueling planned.


Forest Green said:
Would replacing the eventual 7 Astutes with new SSGNs with 4 VPS modules gradually be much more expensive than just replacing them with new SSNs? I mean, isn't this just another case of CATOBAR carrier or STOVL carrier?
Click to expand...
Not entirely.

SSGNs are primarily about shooting cruise missiles. So you want SSGNs in position to shoot cruise missiles wherever that may be. In practice, parked somewhere in the Med or Red Sea will probably cover 90% of the time you want to shoot cruise missiles at someone, so your SSGN crews will get a lot of port visits there.

SSNs, even if they can shoot some cruise missiles, are much more about shooting torpedoes or antiship missiles at ships and subs. So you want SSNs wherever the good hunting is. This may mean the SCS, this may mean up in the Arctic Ocean if it's time to hunt Russian SSBNs, this may mean out in the western Pacific in general, or it could even mean the Indian Ocean.

Different jobs, just like how SSBNs need to be in different places than you want SSNs.

Ideally, the RN would get ~3 "Dreadnought SSGNs" that are basically the same idea as the Ohio SSGNs just built for the purpose directly instead of refit, and then go on to build ~10-12 AUKUS boats. That's 10-12 AUKUS boats for the RN, none for the Aussies. I strongly suspect the USN will design a "quad pack" that's like the 102" diver lockout chambers from the Ohio SSGNs to use for the next SSGN subs, so the RN can buy a few of those. At the rate the Columbia class is going, I think the RN would be the first user of the "Diver quad pack", since I don't expect the USN to build dedicated SSGNs till after all the SSBNs are built.
 
Scott Kenny said:
SSGNs are primarily about shooting cruise missiles. So you want SSGNs in position to shoot cruise missiles wherever that may be. In practice, parked somewhere in the Med or Red Sea will probably cover 90% of the time you want to shoot cruise missiles at someone, so your SSGN crews will get a lot of port visits there.
Click to expand...
That's the bit that the RN doesn't quite get (in this case, at least). They view it as 'has guided missiles'. They called the INVINCIBLE class 'CVSG' on account of the Sea Dart launcher, and occasionally the Type 23s get called 'FFG' because of Sea Wolf/Sea Ceptor. I'm fairly sure the Royal Navy is where the 'K' in SSK got corrupted from 'hunter-killer' to 'conventional', as well.

These are also the same people who think 'CV' is an abbreviation of 'Carrier Vessel', 'SSBN' is 'Ship Submersible Ballistic Nuclear' and 'LPH' is 'Landing Platform Helicopter'. I'm scared to ask what they think 'DD' stands for - probably 'Deadly Destroyer' or some such nonsense. To say nothing of the RFA's 'LSD' class that's got a smaller dock than an LPD.... making it an LKD in my book. This subject is very much one of my irrational pet peeves, that I'll rant to anyone about for any reason.

The one good thing the Royal Navy did with the system was the 1950s creation of classification symbols for frigates: FSA and FSB for first-rate and second-rate antisubmarine, FA for anti-aircraft, FD for fighter direction, and FGP for general purpose.
Scott Kenny said:
At the rate the Columbia class is going, I think the RN would be the first user of the "Diver quad pack", since I don't expect the USN to build dedicated SSGNs till after all the SSBNs are built.
Click to expand...
AFAIK the USN's plan is to replace the SSGNs with VIRGINIA Block 5.
 
Last edited:
Yellow Palace said:
That's the bit that the RN doesn't quite get (in this case, at least). They view it as 'has guided missiles'. They called the INVINCIBLE class 'CVSG' on account of the Sea Dart launcher, and occasionally the Type 23s get called 'FFG' because of Sea Wolf/Sea Ceptor. I'm fairly sure the Royal Navy is where the 'K' in SSK got corrupted from 'hunter-killer' to 'conventional', as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but see also the USN FFG classes. ASW frigates with SAMs and Harpoons. (of course, everything with deck space to spare got Harpoon canisters, so...)


Yellow Palace said:
The one good thing the Royal Navy did with the system was the 1950s creation of classification symbols for frigates: FSA and FSB for first-rate and second-rate antisubmarine, FA for anti-aircraft, FA for fighter direction, and FGP for general purpose.
Click to expand...
That's almost too complex, IMO, though I suppose it would account for the old school DE hull types and "Mobilization Frigates" that would be quick to build to replace ship numbers.

Also, "FA" for both AA and for Fighter Direction?


Yellow Palace said:
AFAIK the USN's plan is to replace the SSGNs with VIRGINIA Block 5.
Click to expand...
I swear I've caught some discussion around this forum about doing some SSGNs either in place of one SSBN during the regular build schedule or at the end of the SSBN build, while the Virginia line has already transitioned to SSN(X). And then I really hope that the Navy manages to convince Congress to run the SSBN/GN line to make more SSN(X)s, making 3-4 a year after the SSBNs are in service. It's utterly stupid to not keep the lines running, not after you spend all that money training and clearing the workers to make subs.

But that's not UK stuff.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yeah, but see also the USN FFG classes. ASW frigates with SAMs and Harpoons. (of course, everything with deck space to spare got Harpoon canisters, so...)
Click to expand...
Those at least had an area defence SAM of sorts in Tartar/Standard, making for a kind of scaled down DDG.
Scott Kenny said:
That's almost too complex, IMO, though I suppose it would account for the old school DE hull types and "Mobilization Frigates" that would be quick to build to replace ship numbers.

Also, "FA" for both AA and for Fighter Direction?
Click to expand...
Should be FD for fighter direction, fixed that!

The FS/FA/FD split does more or less correspond to the USN's DE/DEG/DER. The USN flagged colonial sloops - which were covered by FGP - as PG, though that line ended with the ERIE class of 1932. Dividing FSA and FSB does seem a bit fiddly, but it rougly reflects the WW2 frigate/corvette split; the USN (perhaps rightly) didn't go in for the second-rate ASW ship, so the need never arose.
Scott Kenny said:
It's utterly stupid to not keep the lines running, not after you spend all that money training and clearing the workers to make subs.
Click to expand...
Ah, but this is UK stuff... industrial capability matters. It's probably the second most important thing in (re)building military capability, after the training pipeline for personnel - and ahead of building up reserves of equipment and ammunition, because you need the industry to be able to do that.

The ships, planes, tanks and stuff actually come last on the list of priorities, because without the first three they're useless except for parades.
 
"None of the claimed Houthi strikes appear to have happened, though Anvil Point has been in the area. The MoD’s inability to put out a statement reassuring the families of those embarked is due to its institutional sluggishness and nothing else.
Click to expand...

In the modern era, merchant mariner crew members almost certainly have regular cell phone or email contact with their family members. They don't need a public statement from MoD to be reassured.
 
TomS said:
In the modern era, merchant mariner crew members almost certainly have regular cell phone or email contact with their family members. They don't need a public statement from MoD to be reassured.
Click to expand...
Getting a statement from the MoD stops the press from fear-mongering, however.
 
Given its not an MOD-owned asset or MOD-manned and may not have even been carrying MOD equipment at the time, why would the MOD issue a statement?
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

RAF Chinook stranded in field for days after technical problems

Aircraft being guarded by Air Force near Bere Regis, Dorset, while it undergoes engineering assessment
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
Happens a lot more often than people think.

Heck, there's even recent video of a USMC H53 landing on a beach, then after a couple of hours flying up to a civilian airfield.

You have an emergency in a helo, you land RIGHT NOW, then figure out whether you can fly to a place with mechanics.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom