Register here

Author Topic: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?  (Read 22230 times)

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7733
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 977
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #91 on: February 01, 2018, 01:55:53 am »
Efforts have now begun to find a replacement for the last few remaining Gazelles.
It sounds like a mixed UAV and helicopter replacement, with the UAV doing the reconnaissance and few light helicopters for the liaison/light transport role. Saying that, given the previously hinted cuts to the AAC fleet its possible there won't be any like-for-like replacement. 

Also in the article is an update on the likelihood of a further Chinook order. Its seems highly unlikely that another type will be acquired other than the 'Wokka'.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uk-begins-gazelle-helicopter-replacement-effort-445376/

Offline steelpillow

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 408
  • So many projects, so little time...
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #92 on: February 01, 2018, 11:18:25 am »
Why not use the UAVs for the liaison/light transport role too? Self-driving cars? Ptui!

Just make sure you buy European avionics so they use Galileo not Russian-controllable GPS!
Cheers.

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #93 on: February 01, 2018, 07:39:34 pm »
Efforts have now begun to find a replacement for the last few remaining Gazelles.
It sounds like a mixed UAV and helicopter replacement, with the UAV doing the reconnaissance

I had naturally assumed that the UK purchased the AH-64E with MUMT-I kits for this reason.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3148
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #94 on: February 02, 2018, 02:37:03 am »
Not necessarily an unmanned platform, a manned platform with a considerably better avionics suite could do a lot of the referred to workload reduction. That said, common sense (not often seen admittedly) would be to roll any desired unmanned capability into the navy command sponsored RWUAS R&D programme.

A further Chinook buy, as a Puma replacement, has been penciled in for years.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 977
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #95 on: February 05, 2018, 05:13:32 am »
Lobbying to save the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy's amphibious warfare capabilities is continuing, the time by the Defence Select Committee.
They obviously want the government to increase defence spending but that seems unlikely. Evidently the Committee must feel that the cuts to amphibious warfare are being seriously considered.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/04/royal-marines-cuts-undermine-security-mps-defence-committee

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 977
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #96 on: February 05, 2018, 07:34:17 am »
True, but last October the MOD was trying to shrug off such claims as "pure speculation". Of course until the review is published this summer it still is speculation, but it is the most likely headline axe to save expenditure.
This 'new' review (new in that its been hived off from the National Security Capability Review) announced by the relatively new Minister, Gavin Williamson, is labelled the Defence Modernisation Programme and seems to be couched in non-cutting speak but its hard to see a way out other than some form of cuts to make ends meet.

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 483
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #97 on: February 07, 2018, 12:56:08 am »
There are a lot of areas where spending is being reviewed and probably the biggest winner will be cyber warfare, the traditional aspects of conflict seem to be vulnerable.  When for instance, aircraft carriers are having to wait years for a complete air wing and are restricted in ability due to overly conflicting financial interest you have a scenario where the military are already on the point of being toothless.  One example among many and I do not think those carriers are the sole harbingers of defence capability being reduced too far.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 977
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #98 on: April 18, 2018, 05:10:27 am »
The armed forces are still short of manpower. The National Audit Office has identified 102 trades that do not have enough trained regulars to carry out operational tasks. Most of these were in; engineering, intelligence, logistics, pilots, communications and medical. For example, 2,400 engineers (the largest shortfall being Royal Navy weapons technicians), 700 intelligence analysts and 800 pilots.
The NAO are critical that all three armed forces have separate intelligence organisations, especially when they are also competing for analysts against other government agencies and private companies.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/18/armed-forces-facing-biggest-shortfall-in-staff-for-a-decade-report

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 977
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #99 on: May 14, 2018, 02:33:48 am »
Some mixed news for UK defence spending.

Defence secretary Gavin Williamson has approved £2.5bn for the UK’s submarine programme, including a £1.6bn contract for the last Astute Class (HMS Agincourt) and other contracts worth £906m for the next phase of the Dreadnought programme covering the next 12 months.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/14/defence-secretary-gives-go-ahead-for-25bn-spend-on-submarines

On the other hand just last week the Public Accounts Committee warned that the MOD “simply does not have enough money to buy all the equipment it says it needs” and accused it of not being clear with politicians or the public about the financial risks.
The PAC inquiry's most conservative estimate of the funding gap is £4.9bn, rising to a worst-case scenario of £20.8bn more than the 10-year £179.7bn equipment budget. The PAC’s 2017 review had found a budget shortfall of £7bn.
Some of the increase is due to Dreadnought costs being brought forward but the PAC also noted that the MOD had not included the Type 31 frigate in the original spending plan, plus another £9.6bn of "additional costs", although the MOD were unable to say where they were.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/11/mod-faces-21bn-budget-shortfall-warns-spending-watchdog

The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn during a visit to BAE Systems' Govan site last Friday called for navy shipbuilding contracts to remain in the UK and that the contract for three new RFA ships should remain in the UK. He has come under fire from the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) for making the speech in Glasgow when BAE's yards at Govan and Scotstoun are already at capacity and so isn't tendering for the ships, instead of at Rosyth where  Babcock Marine is making a bid. (In any case the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had also made the same mistake and Govan is her constituency!)
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2629915/jeremy-corbyn-glasgow-shipyards-mocked-snp/

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 977
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #100 on: May 17, 2018, 01:02:09 am »
The Defence Committee inquiry into amphibious forces published their report in February 2018 and concluded that reductions to the amphibious fleet would be “militarily illiterate” and “totally at odds with strategic reality”.  It emphasised that the specialist nature of amphibious capability and that cutting it would end its status as one of the UK’s leading strategic assets. The Committee also concluded from the evidence obtained that that amphibious operations require specially configured warships manned by amphibious specialists and that not doing so would expose the vessels and the personnel to an unreasonable level of operational risk.
At the moment however, the government is sticking firmly to the line that the carriers can take on the role.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carriers-cannot-take-the-place-of-specialised-amphibious-vessels-say-defence-committe/

Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 483
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #101 on: May 28, 2018, 01:19:28 pm »
Posit thus, the Japanese go for the F-22 with F-35 systems and sensors and the UK buys in to that, I know far fetched but, how many VTOL F-35's would we need if the RAF get the F-22/F-35 half breed for conventional roles?

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 977
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #102 on: July 24, 2018, 04:51:09 am »
The MoD have announced the closure of RAF Scampton and RAF Linton-on-Ouse as part of its plan to sell a one-third of its estate to make nearly £3bn of savings by 2040.
No news yet on where the Red Arrows will relocate to.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-44936234

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7733
  • The path not taken.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 977
Re: Rearming the UK: What equipment? and how much?
« Reply #104 on: July 30, 2018, 05:13:42 am »
Even more woe:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-tyne-reactivated-due-to-issues-with-replacement-ship/

HMS Tyne has been recommissioned as her replacement, HMS Forth, the first of the River Class Batch 2s, is not ready for service due to several defects.
The source seems somewhat vague and the claims are unsubstantiated, but the claim is that there are over 100 defects to be rectified by BAE Systems before the RN can accept the ship.