Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

[zen]

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?

The Deterrent is not a business in the UK.
Despite various claims, it's fundamentally a state run enterprise.

 

[Dolgoth Sepk]

The Deterrent is not a business in the UK.
Despite various claims, it's fundamentally a state run enterprise.

The state-owned enterprises with massive losses will be privatized and dismantled, following the path of Thatcher's reforms
Although political factors carry more weight

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Deterrent is not a business in the UK.
Despite various claims, it's fundamentally a state run enterprise.

Any business that you'd want to contract with to support this, say Ferranti for the guidance systems on both sub and missiles, will ask themselves that question.

What purpose is building an enormous HEU production facility if it's only going to be run for a couple hundred new warheads, costing hundreds of millions each? Not sure what the UK would use for that, but in the US we'd call that a boondoggle. Which is a career-ending pejorative.

 

[Arjen]

In a commercial society, you can’t pull this off.
Business is business.

Last year, Finland and Sweden joined NATO. Even Switzerland is cooperating more with NATO. Most European nations have considerably raised their defence budget.
Wait and see. All that money is going somewhere. Personnel. Equipment. My guess is that European nuclear weapons will be part of that.

 

[Dolgoth Sepk]

Last year, Finland and Sweden joined NATO. Even Switzerland is cooperating more with NATO. Most European nations have considerably raised their defence budget.
Wait and see. All that money is going somewhere. Personnel. Equipment.

Wait and see: Heathrow's third runway or Berlin Brandenburg Airport?

 

[Arjen]

Dutch Delta Works, an ongoing project. When needs must. The Danish straits bridges.

 

[had]

Last year, Finland and Sweden joined NATO. Even Switzerland is cooperating more with NATO. Most European nations have considerably raised their defence budget.
Wait and see. All that money is going somewhere. Personnel. Equipment. My guess is that European nuclear weapons will be part of that.

I would be more optimistic if I would see fast developments in European multinational projects, like new generation of tanks, airplane, air defense systems and drones. See them finally make some decisions.

You can easily spend money without making the right kind of changes – like buying more F-35s.

I think you are right with the nuclear part, though.

 

[Arjen]

I expect much will simply flow into new production facilities and building up stocks.

 

[Dolgoth Sepk]

I would be more optimistic if I would see fast developments in European multinational projects, like new generation of tanks, airplane, air defense systems and drones. See them finally make some decisions.

You can easily spend money without making the right kind of changes – like buying more F-35s.

I think you are right with the nuclear part, though.

Trump stated that the EU is an organization designed to confront the US, then the US-led NATO is an organization that divides Europe.

I expect much will simply flow into new production facilities and building up stocks.

I don't think Europe can determine how many orders it can secure until the power struggle with Trump over who holds greater influence in Europe's enterprises is settled

 

[had]

I expect much will simply flow into new production facilities and building up stocks.

That makes sense for the short term but if you can’t even make that kind of decisions during this radical change of geopolitics, I don’t have much hope for anything.

 

[Arjen]

Trump stated that the EU is an organization designed to confront the US

He is wrong, but if the USA persists and acts on that opinion, then there is no future for NATO.

 

[Arjen]

who holds greater influence in Europe's enterprises

Europe.

 

[Dolgoth Sepk]

If Europe truly decides to act independently, it will face two critical challenges: (1) strategic decoupling from the United States, whether dealing with Democrats, Republicans, or Trump; and (2) securing affordable energy sources amid current geopolitical tensions with Russia.
ps,Russia possesses everything old Europe lacks: cheap energy, vast markets, and military power. Thus, NATO remains an organization designed to divide Europe (including Russia), a conclusion that holds logical consistency.

On all China-related issues, you've been acting as America's lackey and parrot. Decoupling from the US? Don't make me laugh!
Stop discussing European independence. You will submit to Trump's rule, and perhaps to Vance in four years

Look what Macron the spineless is saying now: Stop sanctioning Europe, let's unite against China!
There are a few Europeans in this forum just like him, preaching European independence with their words, yet kneeling faster than anyone before the US when it truly matters.

Sorry, these complaints aren’t about you @had

 

[zen]

What purpose is building an enormous HEU production facility if it's only going to be run for a couple hundred new warheads, costing hundreds of millions each?

UK currently sets a limit of 260 warheads, this is the domestic sustainment figure.
Production for other states would add to this figure.
One might speculate on a like-for-like basis of US warheads. Then we might ask how many that is.....?

Edited in numbers I can find:-
Germany 100
Italy 35
Netherlands 15
Belgium 10-15

To which we can envision Sweden (35?) and Poland (100?)
So roughly 300 additional warheads. Sustainment figure being something between half again or double I forgot the precise figure.

However the peak of US nuclear weapons deployed to Europe was 1971 and some 7,300.

HEU plant maybe justified if for AUKUS as well.

 

[Arjen]

On all China-related issues, you've been acting as America's lackey and parrot.

A lackey AND a parrot? I will just go and crack a peanut then, preen my feathers.

 

[Ainen]

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.

In UK?
With all due respect, for new ICBM, it's some China schedule (figure of speech, no one in modern world probably can manage that fast even from a hot develop line).
Best proposal in 5 years is US-independent gravity bomb.

 

[Dolgoth Sepk]

In UK?
With all due respect, for new ICBM, it's some China schedule (figure of speech, no one in modern world probably can manage that fast even from a hot develop line).
Best proposal in 5 years is US-independent gravity bomb.

I believe China is also incapable of developing and fielding a new ICBM within five years.

 

[Ainen]

I believe China is also incapable of developing and fielding a new ICBM within five years.

Yep. Maybe DPRK, but at a lower technological level.

 

[Scott Kenny]

UK currently sets a limit of 260 warheads, this is the domestic sustainment figure.
Production for other states would add to this figure.
One might speculate on a like-for-like basis of US warheads. Then we might ask how many that is.....?

Well, that's US B61s. I'm assuming that most of what's in Europe are the B61-12, and there's ~400-500 of those according to the wiki article on B61s (citing the FAS). Let's add 50% for other subtypes, so ~600-750. Let's also go with the lower number, since IIRC the NATO weapons are counted against the US's totals.

(Total production of B61s is almost 3200, but many of the earlier models have been retired entirely. There are some 550 Mod-3s, 700 Mod-4s, 600 Mod-7 strategic nukes, ~50 Mod-11 heavy earth-penetrating, 400-500 Mod-12s, and "a few dozen" Mod-13s)

1,500 deployed, 5,000 in stockpile. Specific quantities can be checked based on NEW START, with the order of magnitude confirmed.

Not the question that was asked, though it was phrased poorly. He's asking about NATO dual-key weapons owned by the US but "loaned" to other countries to deploy if both the host country and the US agreed that the release was authorized. The ones that the UK could conceivably replace.

While I'm thinking about it, if the UK asked for French assistance on their SLBMs, it's possible France would be willing to buy a few UK-built warheads. France has about 500 warheads of all types.

 

[Dolgoth Sepk]

Not the question that was asked, though it was phrased poorly. He's asking about NATO dual-key weapons owned by the US but "loaned" to other countries to deploy if both the host country and the US agreed that the release was authorized. The ones that the UK could conceivably replace.

While I'm thinking about it, if the UK asked for French assistance on their SLBMs, it's possible France would be willing to buy a few UK-built warheads. France has about 500 warheads of all types.

I misunderstood that the interconnections between the sections were less critical than they actually are.

It sounds like it will evolve into a debate similar to the US district-based economic/employment controversies.How many orders can we secure, and how many jobs will that actually translate into? Blah blah..

 

[bob225]

Wow,

My mistake, i thought this thread was about REARMING THE UK??

i maybe dim, it's been said before, but didn't realise that we're already planing the SA80 Replacement

Britain confirms L85A3 rifle replacement still underway

The Ministry of Defence has provided an update on Project GRAYBURN, the initiative to replace the standard-issue L85A3 rifle used by British Armed Forces, in response to a recent parliamentary question.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk