Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

I'm surprised that this faux pas has escaped largely unnoticed.

www.flightglobal.com

UK mothballs H135s bought to replace Gazelle helicopter fleet

UK procurement officials are facing awkward questions over acquisition policy after it emerged that a fleet of Airbus Helicopters H135s purchased as replacements for the British Army's elderly Gazelles has been mothballed before ever seeing active use.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
Hood said:
I'm surprised that this faux pas has escaped largely unnoticed.

www.flightglobal.com

UK mothballs H135s bought to replace Gazelle helicopter fleet

UK procurement officials are facing awkward questions over acquisition policy after it emerged that a fleet of Airbus Helicopters H135s purchased as replacements for the British Army's elderly Gazelles has been mothballed before ever seeing active use.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...

From behind the paywall . . .

"This is due to the improved security situation in Northern Ireland which has removed the requirement for helicopter flights, the sources indicate.
Defence officials are now considering a range of options for the H135s, which could include a sale or lease back to Airbus Helicopters or a transfer to the National Police Air Service, which already operates H135s."

cheers,
Robin.
 
robunos said:

Defence officials are now considering a range of options for the H135s, which could include a sale or lease back to Airbus Helicopters or a transfer to the National Police Air Service, which already operates H135s."
Click to expand...

Still embarrassing for the UK government to have to mothball unused aircraft.

If only there was some European country that was currently desperate for modern aircraft, say for casevac missions and such ...
 
Apophenia said:
Still embarrassing for the UK government to have to mothball unused aircraft.
Click to expand...
Well yes, but embarrassing in a good way . . .
"I've got bad news and good news, the bad news is we won't be using those new helicopters we've just ordered, the good news is it's because we can patrol on the ground without being shot at . . ."
It's not the usual 'we've bought the wrong kit!' or 'the kit we've just bought don't work!' for a change.
Apophenia said:
If only there was some European country that was currently desperate for modern aircraft, say for casevac missions and such ...
Click to expand...
Agreed . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 
But there are still 50-year old Army Air Corps 665 Squadron Gazelles flying from Aldergrove (one of them flew over my workplace last week oddly) so the excuse seems a little hollow to me - unless of course the MOD is planning to disband 665 Squadron.
 
des.mod.uk

Challenger 3 Critical Design Review (CDR) approved - Defence Equipment & Support

Another significant milestone has been achieved by the Challenger 3 Delivery Team as we move closer to delivering one of the most capable and lethal tanks in Europe.
des.mod.uk des.mod.uk

The Challenger 3 is significantly better than previous announcements said now, the 1500hp CV12 is pretty much confirmed and the armor will be improved.
 
TomS said:
zen said:
Rumours of new build doing the rounds.....
Technically not impossible.
Click to expand...

It might be cheaper than refurbishing old hulls, adding new suspensions, and retrofitting new turrets. It often turns out that way.
Click to expand...
True but this is going to trigger the mother of all bun fights.

Army has wasted billions and under the Blair-Brown-Cameron-May-Boris years we've seen the end of a lot of manufacturering. All passed off as inevitable and of no importance.

Plus a lot egos are wrapped up in a Leo2 with UK turret. With the Germans floating the temptation of a Leo2 production line in the UK (German line is closed and only the Greek one is running).
A lot of money and lobbying going on there.

So No.11 have a lot of allies against any resurrection of UK design and production of armour.
 
Last edited:
What happened to the Defence Industrial Strategy? Wasn't that supposed to be all about sovereign, 'on-shore' capability (design and manufacture)?
 
www.gov.uk

British Army announces new artillery deal with Sweden

The British Army will receive modern artillery platforms to replace those supplied to Ukraine, as part of an agreement struck with Sweden.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
The first 14 Archer artillery systems will have ownership transferred to the British Army this month and be fully operational by next April, forming an interim replacement for the 32 AS90 artillery systems the UK gifted to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Click to expand...
 
aonestudio said:
www.gov.uk

British Army announces new artillery deal with Sweden

The British Army will receive modern artillery platforms to replace those supplied to Ukraine, as part of an agreement struck with Sweden.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
The first 14 Archer artillery systems will have ownership transferred to the British Army this month and be fully operational by next April, forming an interim replacement for the 32 AS90 artillery systems the UK gifted to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Very quick delivery. Shephard is indicating that the British guns (and 8 other guns going to Ukraine) are coming out of Sweden's existing inventory of 48 Archer on the 6x6 Volvo A30 chassis, while Sweden has ordered replacements based on the MAN HX2 8x8 chassis. The original goal was to increase the Swedish Army artillery force to 72 guns, but with 22 guns going elsewhere, perhaps they'll settle for maintaining the current 48 for now, split evenly between A30 and HX2 chassis, while trying to standardize on the later going forward. I'd expect any future British Army order for new Archers to also use HX2, since the HX range are already in use for logistics.

It's also interesting that initial reports were talking about one battery (6 guns plus 2 maintenance spares) while the actual order seems to be two batteries plus spares (12+2).

UK set to acquire Archer for interim artillery requirement | Shephard

The British Army is set to take between six and eight BAE Systems Bofors Archer 155mm self-propelled artillery systems to cover a capability gap caused by donating AS90 howitzers to Ukraine.
www.shephardmedia.com
 
TomS said:

It's also interesting that initial reports were talking about one battery (6 guns plus 2 maintenance spares) while the actual order seems to be two batteries plus spares (12+2).

UK set to acquire Archer for interim artillery requirement | Shephard

The British Army is set to take between six and eight BAE Systems Bofors Archer 155mm self-propelled artillery systems to cover a capability gap caused by donating AS90 howitzers to Ukraine.
www.shephardmedia.com
Click to expand...
Doesn't Britain use 8-gun Batteries?
 
It looks like HMS Westminster may never complete her life extension. It looks like the refit programme is hitting obstacles as these ships age causing greater than expected work and cost at a time when money could be better spent elsewhere. Sadly Westminster is one of the few ships with Type 2087 too.
(I have to say though, MOD history is littered with cases of expensive refits completed just before premature retirement and scrapping so perhaps its no bad thing to avoid wasting money by retiring or patching things until the new ships arrive).

www.navylookout.com

HMS Westminster refit suspended and her return to service in doubt | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com
 
It is interesting how much UK forces are still shaped by the roles we had in the 1980s.
Although BAOR is now long gone and most NATO European members have better equipped armies to defend themselves the Army has tried to hang on to one Armoured Division as its basic unit.
The Royal Navy continues to operate T23 frigates as its main escort. These were designed to cope with a huge Soviet submarine threat to convoys in the N Atlantic.
The RAF's Typhoon force was originally ordered to replace Phantoms and Jaguars on the Central Front and flanks of NATO.
Nearly 40 years have passed since these weapons were first envisaged yet the services still cling to them and their replacements are still tending to these 1980s roles.
But the world has changed. China and Russia are not the Soviet Union. For all the bluster of Xi and Putin they have armed forces which can barely invade their neighbours (Ask Vietnam how effective the Chinese were the one time they tried!).
Successive Defence Reviews have failed to grasp that in practical terms the UK does not need to play a leading or even major role in conflicts overseas. Like other medium to small countries, securing our home and economic zones should now be the key focus of our armed forces.

.
 
uk 75 said:
Successive Defence Reviews have failed to grasp that in practical terms the UK does not need to play a leading or even major role in conflicts overseas. Like other medium to small countries, securing our home and economic zones should now be the key focus of our armed forces.
Click to expand...

At the risk of going political . . .
This, this, this, and THIS!

cheers,
Robin.
 
uk 75 said:
Like other medium to small countries, securing our home and economic zones should now be the key focus of our armed forces.
Click to expand...
What other country is a UNSC member, member of the G7, a global center of finance (arguably The global Centre of Finance) founder of other states (who obviously have direct roots to the UK and it's population) and is mostly a large island off the coast of Europe?

In fact outside of France and Spain no one comes close in comparison of geography, cultural and linguistic influence, and blood connections to other parts of the globe.

Securing our economic zone is securing the North Atlantic at a minimum.
Securing our home requires we keep troubles far away. Not wait for them to arrive nearby.
Better Drake at Cadiz, than Harold at Hastings.

When a ICBM can reach us from almost the opposite side of the globe.
The idea events there have no bearing on us is naivety in the extreme.

Your electronic devices depend on materials mined from different continents.
Our copper mines are empty and the amount of rare earth metals in the UK would only be economic if we could not access larger and higher density deposits elsewhere.

Your customers are also spread around the world.

If you want the wealth and benefits of modern technology, then you are going to have to be involved outside the comfort zone of the North Sea and Channel.
 
zen said:
uk 75 said:
Like other medium to small countries, securing our home and economic zones should now be the key focus of our armed forces.
Click to expand...
What other country is a UNSC member, member of the G7, a global center of finance (arguably The global Centre of Finance) founder of other states (who obviously have direct roots to the UK and it's population) and is mostly a large island off the coast of Europe?

In fact outside of France and Spain no one comes close in comparison of geography, cultural and linguistic influence, and blood connections to other parts of the globe.

Securing our economic zone is securing the North Atlantic at a minimum.
Securing our home requires we keep troubles far away. Not wait for them to arrive nearby.
Better Drake at Cadiz, than Harold at Hastings.

When a ICBM can reach us from almost the opposite side of the globe.
The idea events there have no bearing on us is naivety in the extreme.

Your electronic devices depend on materials mined from different continents.
Our copper mines are empty and the amount of rare earth metals in the UK would only be economic if we could not access larger and higher density deposits elsewhere.

Your customers are also spread around the world.

If you want the wealth and benefits of modern technology, then you are going to have to be involved outside the comfort zone of the North Sea and Channel.
Click to expand...
Well said.

In other words, either we ‘contain’ China now, and into the future, or our grandkids will be fighting them in Turkey, or in Dover.

Aukus is for this purpose, I expect to see us flying B21 eventually.
 
These arguments all have a strong case to make.
My counter is that we need to accept that many other countries ranging from India to Poland make contributions in some areas that we do not need to duplicate.
There are areas where we can and should make our own contribution.
The first and most important is the nuclear submarine force. After the United States we have the most advanced technology in both SSBN and SSN. It is right that this should be our key defence contribution and receive appropriate funding.
Air Defence and the ability to strike with advanced weapons using a full spectrum of means from aircraft to missiles and UAV building on our present weapons systems is the next most crucial area of expenditure.
General purpose forces provided by the Army, RN and RAF are essential but their composition must recognise the limitations imposed by our ageing population and limited resources compared with other partners in and outside Europe.
For the Army this means lighter, more agile forces equipped with Apaches.and UAVs rather than the heavy equipment available to our European, Korean and Japanese allies as well as the USA.
The RN needs to re-examine the role of its surface fleet. Are two large STOVL carriers and their escorts a sensible way of meeting the numerous lower level commitments we have at home and abroad?
The RAF had restored the MPA force necessary to protect the SSBN/SSN force at home. Other assets like AWACS, tanker and transport forces remain essential.
 
History has frequently taught the lesson that if we neglect proper defence we are regally butt sorted.
For those who advocate smaller defence capability, what happens if we have to defend ourselves alone?
Balanced military industry and a strong defence base is vital, or we might just as well cede sovernty to whichever major nation is in favour at the time because, we will be incapable of being sovereign anything.
 
What use are light army forces if they cannot be deployed abroad?

What guarantee exists that HNA will be available at an acceptable price?

The existence of the ability to provide offensive airpower outside of others territorial waters is itself a tool for exerting pressure to lower HNA 'price'.

Finally if you are not prepared to it "the hard way", then you are certain to find for yourself the unpleasant reality that all the "easy ways" are actually paths to much greater hardship and suffering.

You get involved or others decide for you.
 
As has been accepted by every government since 1966 the UK will only conduct major operations outside the NATO area with the support of the United States. The Falklands could not have been retaken without the active support of the US at Ascension Island and by taking over our NATO roles. It would take a major change of policy to alter this.

Light forces are what we are best at. We lack the resources to match Poland, Germany and now Ukraine in operating heavy combined arms forces. There will be no more Desert Storms or Enduring Freedoms with UK armoured forces.

The light forces we have can be moved both by existing RAF assets and civil air transport. Their role as a tripwire that will bring NATO into action has been well established on NATO flanks and now in the Baltic States. We may even deploy light armour to Ukraine as part of an international force after the war.

Typhoon, F35 and Tempest in the future give us both air defence and strike assets. There have been no cases where RN carrier airpower has had to work on its own (except for the Falklands, which in itself proves my point).

Others already decide for us because of NATO's Article V and our complete reliance on the US in wide areas of our defence effort.

The days of "punching above our weight" were exposed by the futile involvement in Afghansitan and the snatch Land Rover episode. We need to choose our allies, battles and wars with much greater care.
 
There's a lot of glossy topshow but not much to show underneath.

Yes on paper the RAF looks pretty good, tons of Tiffies and F-35s with dreams of 150 Tempests and perhaps other 6th Gen goodies. But at the moment we have no AWACS, but soon(ish) we'll have three Wedgies. All it takes it one runway excursion or wingtip clip and a third of our AEW coverage is gone. Two remain on option for the future but I'm not holding any breath on that. Even Turkey will have more AEW assets than us.

We have a handful of Poseidons. Great (India have more than we have..., again a select committee says we should buy more but that's a given and the MoD can easily ignore them). But we can't refuel them as we didn't order them with probes (probably couldn't be arsed to pay the modifications and certification costs). Likewise we can't refuel RC-135, Wedgie or Globemaster either. Talk about fitting booms to Voyager have got nowhere since 2016. In 2035 the Voyager contract is up and who knows what might happen?

So for any expeditionary aviation force we still need US/NATO AEW and tanker support.
 
uk 75 said:
There have been no cases where RN carrier airpower has had to work on its own (except for the Falklands, which in itself proves my point).
Click to expand...
Aden withdrawal, operations off Korea, deterrence against Guatemala, Sierra Leone...

How many times would a decent carrier capability been far more useful than land based if we'd have had it available? Libya, Afghanistan in 2001 (where despite the fact that 9/11 was the worst terrorist attack on British citizens ever we were effectively locked out of initial airstrikes, with the exception of a handful of Tomahawk)t off the top of my head.

For me a better point is what wars/interventions post 1945 have not required a carrier/or would have been easier with one....and I can't think of any really...
 
Hood said:
There's a lot of glossy topshow but not much to show underneath.
Click to expand...
Any sensible plan to reverse defence shortfalls needs to start with this: a bigger, but equally hollow, force is just as weak in practice. Filling out the gaps in supporting capabilities (a sensible force of ISTAR aircraft, logistics for all the combatant arms, etc.) may not be as sexy as fast jets, but it's far more important.

On the advisability of carriers... zen and uk75 have been debating this point for about 15 years that I can remember, across various fora. I'm not optimistic that an agreement will be reached. My personal view is that the UK can probably afford submarines and aircraft carriers, if it's willing to do so, but that current evidence is that it's not willing to pay for either.
 
timmymagic said:
For me a better point is what wars/interventions post 1945 have not required a carrier/or would have been easier with one....and I can't think of any really..
Click to expand...
Almost none of those were contested so we could have just used a really big barge

Multiple carriers, airgroups, and support ships to sustain operations are not cheap. What gives instead? e.g. using just carriers to sustain over a decade of Herrick Ops would be nuts for the UK
 
uk 75 said:
As has been accepted by every government since 1966 the UK will only conduct major operations outside the NATO area with the support of the United States. The Falklands could not have been retaken without the active support of the US at Ascension Island and by taking over our NATO roles. It would take a major change of policy to alter this.

Light forces are what we are best at. We lack the resources to match Poland, Germany and now Ukraine in operating heavy combined arms forces. There will be no more Desert Storms or Enduring Freedoms with UK armoured forces.

The light forces we have can be moved both by existing RAF assets and civil air transport. Their role as a tripwire that will bring NATO into action has been well established on NATO flanks and now in the Baltic States. We may even deploy light armour to Ukraine as part of an international force after the war.

Typhoon, F35 and Tempest in the future give us both air defence and strike assets. There have been no cases where RN carrier airpower has had to work on its own (except for the Falklands, which in itself proves my point).

Others already decide for us because of NATO's Article V and our complete reliance on the US in wide areas of our defence effort.

The days of "punching above our weight" were exposed by the futile involvement in Afghansitan and the snatch Land Rover episode. We need to choose our allies, battles and wars with much greater care.
Click to expand...
Do we need 500 tanks in service, and manned. Probably not. So if we assume for a European War, Poland and Germany will do the heavy armour, that leaves us securing the Atlantic and being a supply and repair base, at least for aircraft. I'd feel happier if this meant hangars had been designated, and spare parts and tooling purchased, for long term storage. The Swiss buy 40? Years of spare parts for their aircraft buys, we buy airframes and grudgingly buy parts from industry when we run out.

And if we are light forces, why are we buying 500 ajax and 1100 boxers? Yes we can move them, but it wouldn't be quick with 7 C-17's.....
 
Gentlemen thank you for all the contributions above which are far more sensible than anything in the House of Clowns or even the media.
I loved the comment that Zen and I had already been having a debate about carriers for fifteen years. If you read accounts of postwar British defence policy you will find our arguments mirrored.
 
CVA01 the proposed British carrier cancelled in 1966 remains a favourite of mine. I have several models of her in different scales. A bit like TSR2, another of my childhood loves.
But in the cold light of the "real" 1970s building a single CVA01 would have sucked the air out of the RN budget as the QE and POW have done since 1997.
The three Invincibles with their Sea Harriers and Seakings plus Seadart gave us a better coverage of the N Atlantic than a single CVA01.
So what do we do now that for better or worse we have two carriers. POW seems to be suffering Eagle's fate as the "spare" for Ark Royal. So QE is for the likely future our only carrier as Ark was from 1972 to 1978.
Given the relatively few carriers available to the US ( even if you include the LHDs) QE plus Italy's Cavour, Spain's Juan Carlos and of course De Gaulle from France are useful additions to NATO.
 
The idea we're going to go through something like the Cold War is somewhat dubious to say the least.
 
Eh? I'd say a more dire cold war than faced in the 20th century. The UK should fairly dramatically increase defense spending. Was watching forgotten weapons concerning the brit AR18 bullpup. The loss of generational skill in various defense sectors and how it can have serious repercussions. You guys need to reestablish your skills in the defense industry and at least have a robust if small and essential MIC. Would be good for us Americans too. You guys held advancements and inspirations which inspired our defense tech going back hundreds of years.
 
TMA1 said:
Eh? I'd say a more dire cold war than faced in the 20th century. The UK should fairly dramatically increase defense spending. Was watching forgotten weapons concerning the brit AR18 bullpup. The loss of generational skill in various defense sectors and how it can have serious repercussions. You guys need to reestablish your skills in the defense industry and at least have a robust if small and essential MIC. Would be good for us Americans too. You guys held advancements and inspirations which inspired our defense tech going back hundreds of years.
Click to expand...
I hate to be the one to say this, but we'll be extremely lucky if we enjoy another Cold War.
The short version to why, is global and particularly industrialised nations are looking at major population reductions. In fact outside of a minority of peoples, everyone is going to experience a major population decline.
It has already begun, we didn't have enough kids decades ago.

And people's time is the ultimate wealth.
Less people = less wealth
= Less investment.
= Less growth
= Less of everything

But the process isn't going to be smooth and safe. It's happening at different rates in different areas and events like the Ukrainian War means certain regions reliant on food production from the likes of Ukraine are going to find themselves out bidden by richer regions, so the local effects from global rises in costs will trigger awful consequences.
 
We are in another glass half full half empty situation.
Though it may not seem like it wars are becoming harder to fight and sustain. The Saudis have been persuaded to talk to Iran over Yemen.
The Russians are not the Soviet Union. Kiyv did not fall as easily as Budapest, Prague or Kabul. But Ukraine is not going to pull off an Israeli 1973 style recovery of territory.
As Zen suggests climate change, food and water shortages, mass migration will all cause violent unrest.
But there is no equivalent of the central front in West Germany in the 1980s. A log slide into the scenarios of Threads and the Day After is not a daily possibility.
Diplomacy may be boring but it takes place round the clock. As Churchill noted, jaw jaw is better than war.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom