Future of U.K. forces?
Discussion
Hi guys
As we know lots has changed in the world over the last few weeks so wondering what we think this will do in terms of investment/kit for our armed forces? I’ve seen more money for the navy but does this mean more boats or just a formal commitment to type 26 etc? More F35s? Do we think the numbers of personnel will grow to?
As we know lots has changed in the world over the last few weeks so wondering what we think this will do in terms of investment/kit for our armed forces? I’ve seen more money for the navy but does this mean more boats or just a formal commitment to type 26 etc? More F35s? Do we think the numbers of personnel will grow to?
I don't think anyone knows, and that includes the Govt.....
The SDR2020, that was being tweeked for this year, can be basically ripped up, and redone completely, but they probably won't.
The scrapping of the C130J's should be stopped....but it won't.
The 30 years of the 'peace dividend' that the Govt have used as a means of spending less after the end of the cold war, is over for the forseable future.......well it should be.
I think the idea of changing the order for more F-35B's beyond the 48 committed to A model, after the 48 x B's might have to be looked at, as more B's as I think the RAF have to a serious Tonka replacement, and that's not really the Typhoon or the B version of the Dave.....and can we afford to wait until Tempest?
Or maybe a better short term until Tempest would be some F-15EX's.
I suspect though, they will be waiting to see how the Ukraine situation pans out a bit more before any decisions will be made.
The SDR2020, that was being tweeked for this year, can be basically ripped up, and redone completely, but they probably won't.
The scrapping of the C130J's should be stopped....but it won't.
The 30 years of the 'peace dividend' that the Govt have used as a means of spending less after the end of the cold war, is over for the forseable future.......well it should be.
I think the idea of changing the order for more F-35B's beyond the 48 committed to A model, after the 48 x B's might have to be looked at, as more B's as I think the RAF have to a serious Tonka replacement, and that's not really the Typhoon or the B version of the Dave.....and can we afford to wait until Tempest?
Or maybe a better short term until Tempest would be some F-15EX's.
I suspect though, they will be waiting to see how the Ukraine situation pans out a bit more before any decisions will be made.
I think that there will be a lot of thoughts across all European countries on this subject.
Although UK isn't part of the EU anymore, I think that there should be a more efficient European -if not NATO- approach to standardization.
I was reading this morning an interview with EU Head of military committee who was highlighting the high costs we are bearing do to (basically) every country going its own route.
in the interview he said that the 27 EU Countries spend 230 billion Euro to maintain 180 different weapon systems (in the article there is no explanation regarding the exact meaning of this "weapon system") compared to the 30 systems of the US, 17 different ground systems (as before...) compared to 1 for the US.
The cost to maintain the interoperability of all these systems is calculated in about 100 billion Euro / year which could be better used in a common defence.
I have just read on Reuters that Germany is evaluating to buy up to 35 F-35 to replace the Tonkas, this might be a move in the right direction, considering that several countries are already using it (UK, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Poland, Finland and potentially Spain and Czech Republic). Of course it will be difficult for certain "other countries" (read France) to accept such changes, but in the long term I think we should more focused on our common interest that the one of each single country.
Although UK isn't part of the EU anymore, I think that there should be a more efficient European -if not NATO- approach to standardization.
I was reading this morning an interview with EU Head of military committee who was highlighting the high costs we are bearing do to (basically) every country going its own route.
in the interview he said that the 27 EU Countries spend 230 billion Euro to maintain 180 different weapon systems (in the article there is no explanation regarding the exact meaning of this "weapon system") compared to the 30 systems of the US, 17 different ground systems (as before...) compared to 1 for the US.
The cost to maintain the interoperability of all these systems is calculated in about 100 billion Euro / year which could be better used in a common defence.
I have just read on Reuters that Germany is evaluating to buy up to 35 F-35 to replace the Tonkas, this might be a move in the right direction, considering that several countries are already using it (UK, Italy, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Poland, Finland and potentially Spain and Czech Republic). Of course it will be difficult for certain "other countries" (read France) to accept such changes, but in the long term I think we should more focused on our common interest that the one of each single country.
AlexIT said:
Of course it will be difficult for certain "other countries" (read France) to accept such changes, but in the long term I think we should more focused on our common interest that the one of each single country.
France only have themselves to blame for that....not that they will ever see it that way of course.I'd be worried about having all my fast jet assets wrapped up in just two types. If one of those types develops an issue which leads to grounding then we're immediately struggling. I'd be looking at Super Hornets as an off-the-shelf third type to provide some resilience. But I am no expert, maybe this is a daft idea.
And also, putting our strategic reserves of fuels, foods, etc back in place.
And also, putting our strategic reserves of fuels, foods, etc back in place.
Yertis said:
I'd be worried about having all my fast jet assets wrapped up in just two types. If one of those types develops an issue which leads to grounding then we're immediately struggling. I'd be looking at Super Hornets as an off-the-shelf third type to provide some resilience. But I am no expert, maybe this is a daft idea.
Also speed of construction. If there's a real war, a/c are going to get shot down faster than they can be built. Hence it really would be a war of attrition.Everybody seems to be lined up for F35s. How come Europe isn't buying more Eurofighters/Typhoons? Or are they?
I'm not sure "tooling up' really is the obvious lesson here. I'm all in favour of having a highly credible conventional defence capability, but what we've actually seen is that Russian forces aren't up to much at loads of different levels. They can't achieve air superiority against a country equipped with a distinctly limited air force on their own doorstep. They can't attack an enemy's air defence effectively. They can't fly large scale coordinated air attacks. They can't fly in support of their ground forces. Their ground forces were woefully under prepared for the task they were given. Their armour is very vulnerable to infantry and drones. Their strategic planning and control is woeful. They were getting mauled by a much smaller adversary with much less kit, but far better training and organisation.
Another lesson is how easily soft power has been deployed to punish Russia and heap pressure on its government. Obviously there are economic consequences for the rest of us, but compared to going to war, knackering their economy has been a walk in the park. Doesn't even require government coordination of every last detail; set the tone and investors and the private sector will do the work for you. Indeed the Russian general public will undermine their own banking system by trying to hoard hard currency cash. It's worth reiterating how important it is that we've demonstrated we're prepared to take an economic hit ourselves in order to kick an adversary in the balls. We may be soft and decadent, but we're organised and prepared to wear hair shirts when necessary for the greater good. Putin's assumption that he can divide and frustrate international opposition has proved to be spectacularly wrong
Clearly being able to provide a broad and united front has been crucial, and thank heavens Western diplomats were able to get all of us on the same page pretty quickly. It's clearly worth investing time and effort in being better prepared to react both with soft and hard power in the future. We need more interoperable mutual defence, i.e. more NATO. We need the UN to be more effective. What we don't need is the perception that mutual defence and international cooperation are just a vehicle for US hegemony which is the prism through which a lot of despots view the outside world ... (and the French). I wonder if reform of the UN Security Council should now be on the table? Suspend Russia until they say sorry, France formally representing the EU, add India, add Japan. Make the while thing less Euro-centric.
Another lesson is how easily soft power has been deployed to punish Russia and heap pressure on its government. Obviously there are economic consequences for the rest of us, but compared to going to war, knackering their economy has been a walk in the park. Doesn't even require government coordination of every last detail; set the tone and investors and the private sector will do the work for you. Indeed the Russian general public will undermine their own banking system by trying to hoard hard currency cash. It's worth reiterating how important it is that we've demonstrated we're prepared to take an economic hit ourselves in order to kick an adversary in the balls. We may be soft and decadent, but we're organised and prepared to wear hair shirts when necessary for the greater good. Putin's assumption that he can divide and frustrate international opposition has proved to be spectacularly wrong
Clearly being able to provide a broad and united front has been crucial, and thank heavens Western diplomats were able to get all of us on the same page pretty quickly. It's clearly worth investing time and effort in being better prepared to react both with soft and hard power in the future. We need more interoperable mutual defence, i.e. more NATO. We need the UN to be more effective. What we don't need is the perception that mutual defence and international cooperation are just a vehicle for US hegemony which is the prism through which a lot of despots view the outside world ... (and the French). I wonder if reform of the UN Security Council should now be on the table? Suspend Russia until they say sorry, France formally representing the EU, add India, add Japan. Make the while thing less Euro-centric.
ATG said:
I'm not sure "tooling up' really is the obvious lesson here. I'm all in favour of having a highly credible conventional defence capability, but what we've actually seen is that Russian forces aren't up to much at loads of different levels. They can't achieve air superiority against a country equipped with a distinctly limited air force on their own doorstep. They can't attack an enemy's air defence effectively. They can't fly large scale coordinated air attacks. They can't fly in support of their ground forces. Their ground forces were woefully under prepared for the task they were given. Their armour is very vulnerable to infantry and drones. Their strategic planning and control is woeful. They were getting mauled by a much smaller adversary with much less kit, but far better training and organisation.
Thank you, ATG - you've saved me writing a post! I read this thread this morning and was going to reply, basically hitting all the points you did - but especially this paragraph - when I had a quiet moment between work. No need now!While the revived emphasis and unity on security and defence from NATO/Europe is very welcome (assuming it is sustained) and it's good to see NATO members changing decades-held positions re: spending and starting to hit their commitments, the real takeaway from the situation in Ukraine (as far as we can tell with the fog of war still thick - analysts and staff officers will be poring over this conflict after the dust settles) is that quantity is nothing without quality, and quality (properly trained, managed and led) can defeat quantity.
The point about soft power is also very true. Overnight Russia has managed to destroy not only its military credibility but also lots of regional influence and soft power (much of which was based on that same military credibility). Similarly, NATO, the EU, 'the West' and other geopolitical groups have greatly increased theirs.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff