Have read on MSN that Bo Jo is to increase Defence by £16.5bn over 4 years, this is in addition to an already 0.5% increase above inflation yearly to 2025, which means an extra £21.5bn over that period.
UK Defence Budget
- Thread starter JohnR
- Start date
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 3,736
- Reaction score
- 2,703
That's the aircraft carriers and the new Royal barge, yacht, sorry, plus a little duckie for Boris bathtime but what about the rest?
Yellow Palace
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,054
- Reaction score
- 1,735
Realistically, most of it just goes on the £13 billion hole in the equipment budget.
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 19,999
- Reaction score
- 10,536
Supposedly none of the new money will be spent on that.
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,460
- Reaction score
- 1,453
The mist begins to clear . . .
news.sky.com
It's the money to use to fight the fish wars with France after a No-Deal Brexit . . .
cheers,
Robin.
Boris Johnson vows to make UK 'foremost naval power in Europe' with boost to defence budget
Boris Johnson vows to make UK 'foremost naval power in Europe' with boost to defence budget
The PM warns the "international situation is now more perilous and intensely competitive than at any time since the Cold War".
news.sky.com
It's the money to use to fight the fish wars with France after a No-Deal Brexit . . .
cheers,
Robin.
The mist begins to clear . . .
Boris Johnson vows to make UK 'foremost naval power in Europe' with boost to defence budget
Boris Johnson vows to make UK 'foremost naval power in Europe' with boost to defence budget
The PM warns the "international situation is now more perilous and intensely competitive than at any time since the Cold War".
It's the money to use to fight the fish wars with France after a No-Deal Brexit . . .
cheers,
Robin.
And Spain.
Does this mean we will actually get the escorts were short of, bring up the size of the sub fleet (I don't necessarily mean more SSN's; although that would be nice, I would be happy to see some SSK's for use in training and for use on the continental shelf).
Will they purchase additional F35b's so that both carriers can have a proper air group.
Will they purchase additional F35b's so that both carriers can have a proper air group.
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,331
- Reaction score
- 7,533
Sounds like the usual bluster to me, or as Flateric often so elegantly says, "BS".
First, all those shipyards mentioned are already contractors for current Type 26 and 31 orders, so its really its only confirming ships we already know are in the pipeline, plus the Future Solid Support ships.
Second, that mysterious Type 32 frigate...
Could it be a Type 45 replacement? If so then AAW is getting downsized from DDG to FFG. Or is it simply Type 31 Batch 2? Another speculation that I have seen is that it might actually be a new MCM, which the Navy badly needs more than more frigates. I quite like this last idea, the Type 3x desigation implies something multi-role and low end which would fit an MCM.
I feel more Type 26 might have been a better choice if it is a real frigate that is wanted, but time will tell.
First, all those shipyards mentioned are already contractors for current Type 26 and 31 orders, so its really its only confirming ships we already know are in the pipeline, plus the Future Solid Support ships.
Second, that mysterious Type 32 frigate...
Could it be a Type 45 replacement? If so then AAW is getting downsized from DDG to FFG. Or is it simply Type 31 Batch 2? Another speculation that I have seen is that it might actually be a new MCM, which the Navy badly needs more than more frigates. I quite like this last idea, the Type 3x desigation implies something multi-role and low end which would fit an MCM.
I feel more Type 26 might have been a better choice if it is a real frigate that is wanted, but time will tell.
I do feel that we are short of both AAW and ASW, however if more Type-26's were built if the AA armaments was upgraded to CAMM-ER wouldn't this offset the shortage somewhat.
In regard to the Type 32, I do remember that there was a stated intention to produce a common hull for MCMs and Survey ships.
Has the GRP production capabilities been maintained since the absorption of BVT by BAE?
In regard to the Type 32, I do remember that there was a stated intention to produce a common hull for MCMs and Survey ships.
Has the GRP production capabilities been maintained since the absorption of BVT by BAE?
Last edited:
It was reported as 16 billion over 4 years. Or about 4 billion per annum.
Obviously a host of beggars to that feast.
Lots of rumbling over the disjointed nature of things like Space, Cyber and AI.
Frankly Cyber and AI ought to lie in the preserve of GCHQ on the one hand and the practitioners of the dark arts of EW on the other.
Obviously a host of beggars to that feast.
Lots of rumbling over the disjointed nature of things like Space, Cyber and AI.
Frankly Cyber and AI ought to lie in the preserve of GCHQ on the one hand and the practitioners of the dark arts of EW on the other.
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,331
- Reaction score
- 7,533
In reality £4bn per year is chicken feed, its not clear how all this links in as the Defence Review has not been completed so its hard to untangle where this money is really going.
Like all Downing Street announcements its all smoke and mirrors. One talk bigs up Britain's naval power, another bigs up the cyber and AI stuff. Certainty the press was leading with the cyber, AI and Space Command aspects until the PM the speeches later in the day started waffling about seapower.
So many funding announcements since 2010 have been PR exercises, a lot of it is money or projects already approved and underway or vague targets that make this look like new money but actually its not. This feels more like a timed release of the purse strings driven by Cummings departure so a desire to look like there is still some kind of functioning policy, and before Brexit kicks in on 31 December to prove we can rule the seas and space like we used to (which might fool anyone who doesn't follow defence matters and doesn't realise half the frigates are OPVs and the rockets are imaginary).
Also by farming cyber and AI to other departments like Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, its clear that money is being salami sliced beyond the MoD. Presumably GCHQ/SIS is getting a slice of the cyber money too. Funds for rocket launching pads and rockets and satellites will also be going to other agencies and government departments and also lots of juicy PFI contracts (Lockheed Martin is developing Shetland Space Centre and Orbex and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are planning Space Hub Sutherland).
Like all Downing Street announcements its all smoke and mirrors. One talk bigs up Britain's naval power, another bigs up the cyber and AI stuff. Certainty the press was leading with the cyber, AI and Space Command aspects until the PM the speeches later in the day started waffling about seapower.
So many funding announcements since 2010 have been PR exercises, a lot of it is money or projects already approved and underway or vague targets that make this look like new money but actually its not. This feels more like a timed release of the purse strings driven by Cummings departure so a desire to look like there is still some kind of functioning policy, and before Brexit kicks in on 31 December to prove we can rule the seas and space like we used to (which might fool anyone who doesn't follow defence matters and doesn't realise half the frigates are OPVs and the rockets are imaginary).
Also by farming cyber and AI to other departments like Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, its clear that money is being salami sliced beyond the MoD. Presumably GCHQ/SIS is getting a slice of the cyber money too. Funds for rocket launching pads and rockets and satellites will also be going to other agencies and government departments and also lots of juicy PFI contracts (Lockheed Martin is developing Shetland Space Centre and Orbex and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are planning Space Hub Sutherland).
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 656
- Reaction score
- 236
The Type 32 is a New Frigate to follow on from the Type 31 possibly with a better radar, Area Air Defence Radar & Missiles and possibly Land Attack capability. Hopefully these will push us back over the 20 Escorts number possibly back upto 24.
There was also a multi-role research vessel to replace Scott i think this might be used to develop the basis of a new MCM/Survey mothership for unmanned craft to do the dirty work.
There was also a multi-role research vessel to replace Scott i think this might be used to develop the basis of a new MCM/Survey mothership for unmanned craft to do the dirty work.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 8,413
- Reaction score
- 10,418
That's very definitive. Source?
All we know for sure, AFAICT, is that it's numbered in the new GP range after the Type 31. Anything about new and improved weaponry (area SAMs, land-attack missiles, etc.) is pure speculation. I've even seen suggestions that it could be a "stripped down" Type 31, which invites the question of what a stripped down T31 would have left -- 40mm guns and a water cannon?
Strong musings have occurred elsewhere.
Firstly this whole Type 30 series is either a new definition of ship or a sign other late Type 20 series studies have been rejected.
Since earlier there was a mooted Types 27 and 28, that seems quite plausible. Just as we skipped Types 43 and 44, or Types 24 and 25.
Another thought is that by calling it Type 32 instead of Type 31 Batch II, a competitive tendering will keep Babcock from doing a BAE Systems and gold plating. It also means if another an tender a cheaper ship to the requirements, government isn't beholden to Babcock.
What it signals is that at best we're getting 8 Type 26, with no sign of amy more in a expansion of the RN.
There's also a more subtle signal, that Type 31 assembly isn't as fundamentally tied to Scottish yards......
The stronger argument is to increase the capability of such follow-on Type 31s, rather than cut what is already a much reduced spec vessel.
Another thought is it's easier to increase ship numbers by expanding the Type 31 fleet than by Type 26.
In essence the Type 31 is cheaper to run, and requires less personnel.
5 more Type 31 crews would only crew 2 more Type 26.
Another series of thoughts are that a more dedicated MCMV ship is desired.
Or that the Ivar Huifeldt class are AAW ships, and so a wildcard is it's a means to expand AAW capacity.
And another yet still is, quietening diesel propulsion is a well developed technology, and the Danes did offer an Ivar Huifeldt design developed to Australia.
Firstly this whole Type 30 series is either a new definition of ship or a sign other late Type 20 series studies have been rejected.
Since earlier there was a mooted Types 27 and 28, that seems quite plausible. Just as we skipped Types 43 and 44, or Types 24 and 25.
Another thought is that by calling it Type 32 instead of Type 31 Batch II, a competitive tendering will keep Babcock from doing a BAE Systems and gold plating. It also means if another an tender a cheaper ship to the requirements, government isn't beholden to Babcock.
What it signals is that at best we're getting 8 Type 26, with no sign of amy more in a expansion of the RN.
There's also a more subtle signal, that Type 31 assembly isn't as fundamentally tied to Scottish yards......
The stronger argument is to increase the capability of such follow-on Type 31s, rather than cut what is already a much reduced spec vessel.
Another thought is it's easier to increase ship numbers by expanding the Type 31 fleet than by Type 26.
In essence the Type 31 is cheaper to run, and requires less personnel.
5 more Type 31 crews would only crew 2 more Type 26.
Another series of thoughts are that a more dedicated MCMV ship is desired.
Or that the Ivar Huifeldt class are AAW ships, and so a wildcard is it's a means to expand AAW capacity.
And another yet still is, quietening diesel propulsion is a well developed technology, and the Danes did offer an Ivar Huifeldt design developed to Australia.
I had a quick look on line and the images shown for the Type-32 appear to be the Venator?!?!
I am surprised that they have used the numbers in the 30's, I would have thought that the 80 series would have been more in line with the Multi Purpose role of the 31's.
I am surprised that they have used the numbers in the 30's, I would have thought that the 80 series would have been more in line with the Multi Purpose role of the 31's.
True but I think we should actually see this as in the Type 20 series, just skipping numbers associated with other designs. Which obviously beggars the question just what we're those other designs?
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 8,413
- Reaction score
- 10,418
I think it was a fairly deliberate choice. The 80 series is confused -- would a "Type 83" be more like the "policing" Type 81 Tribal or the "warfighting" Type 82 Bristol? The 30 series has never been used before, AFAIK, so it's a clean slate for "low-mix" escorts for presence tasks. If Bristol had not existed, though, I agree that the 80 series would have made sense.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 8,413
- Reaction score
- 10,418
Ah but....
I dimly reccal talk of variants of the Type 26 labeled Type 27 and Type 28 at the start of the Type 26.
One being a AAW focused variant and the other more GP.
So it's easy in that light and the subsequent efforts to produce a cheaper Type 26 that a Type 29 and Type 30 could have been forthcoming at the time. Trying to strip out yet more cost and crew.
All being BAE Systems and thus prone to their tendency to overprice such.
Hence why in short order a Type 31 is arrived at.
I dimly reccal talk of variants of the Type 26 labeled Type 27 and Type 28 at the start of the Type 26.
One being a AAW focused variant and the other more GP.
So it's easy in that light and the subsequent efforts to produce a cheaper Type 26 that a Type 29 and Type 30 could have been forthcoming at the time. Trying to strip out yet more cost and crew.
All being BAE Systems and thus prone to their tendency to overprice such.
Hence why in short order a Type 31 is arrived at.
zebedee
ACCESS: Secret
BJ: "This will spur a renaissance of British shipbuilding across the UK. In Glasgow and South Belfast, Appledore and Birkenhead. Guaranteed jobs and illuminating the benefits of the Union in the white light of the arc-welders' torch."
Typical Boris bluster aside, I think this is very much on their minds...
Zeb
Source: PM Statement to the House Integrated Review 19 November 2020
You know it might be like the EH101 started out as a typing error, along with it originally being Marlin....
Could someone have misread something about "like a Type 81" and somehow saw Type 31 instead?
- Joined
- 6 September 2006
- Messages
- 4,331
- Reaction score
- 7,533
It is more than likely that with most designation systems begun 70 years ago, that the original system is no longer operable. You only have to look at the current mess of the UK military aircraft serial system to see how these systems have been degraded and altered, the institutional memory has gone.
The 30 series is probably seen as a general-purpose category and being 30 is closer to the 20s which have already been built so have some logic to them rather than 80 numbers. Most of the series 50-79 never got used at all, the original system was probably too expansive.
We shall see what emerges in time.
I would have thought that a Type 45 replacement would be getting nearer the top of the priorities list. The existing intent for 8 Type 26 and 5 Type 31 would replace the current Type 23s like-for-like. The River Batch II should have enough life left and will probably be replaced by another PFI deal or even dumbed-down Type 31s when the time comes. But in terms of age the Type 45 probably has no more than 10-13 years left and given the design phase needed, work will be starting soon I would think. A Type 26 or 31 variant would never be optimal for various reasons. *looks at the new Italian DDG and muses*
The 30 series is probably seen as a general-purpose category and being 30 is closer to the 20s which have already been built so have some logic to them rather than 80 numbers. Most of the series 50-79 never got used at all, the original system was probably too expansive.
We shall see what emerges in time.
I would have thought that a Type 45 replacement would be getting nearer the top of the priorities list. The existing intent for 8 Type 26 and 5 Type 31 would replace the current Type 23s like-for-like. The River Batch II should have enough life left and will probably be replaced by another PFI deal or even dumbed-down Type 31s when the time comes. But in terms of age the Type 45 probably has no more than 10-13 years left and given the design phase needed, work will be starting soon I would think. A Type 26 or 31 variant would never be optimal for various reasons. *looks at the new Italian DDG and muses*
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,634
- Reaction score
- 1,041
I recall talk of AAW Type 27s, and a few mentions of a Type 28 - but it many have been people musing, not any reflection on a program plan.
I think that musing derives from the obvious fact it's massively inefficient to try to restart Type 45 production. Hence talk of an AAW variant of the Type 26.
I suspect there were company studies for Types 27 and 28. Leaked out a little to test the waters.
But it all fell fowl of the costs of Type 26 and it's crew requirements.
However 3 and 8 can on a printer running out of ink and being quite worn, start look very similar. This whole Type 31 business could potentially be traced back to some document talking about a modern Type 81-like concept, that was misread by a journalist or mandarin who just jumped to the wrong conclusion and the term stuck.
- Joined
- 16 April 2008
- Messages
- 8,413
- Reaction score
- 10,418
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 656
- Reaction score
- 236
That's just websites posting up an image of of a failed Type 31 contender, possibly because one of their sources said the 32 may not utilise the type 31 design.
Don't expect too much on the Type 32 new front, the focus in the next 12 months will be finalising and starting the Type 31 as we still don't have a name for the class, they named the Type 32 as they have to start a project budget for it and as a taster for industry and the navy that more is in the pipeline. They will also be after a quick turnaround on bid for the new Stores ships with the proviso they are built in the UK and then theres the new Research ship to be built which seems to be angled towards Appledore or Cammell Laird. Once these have been sorted then we should start to see studies kick off for the Type 32 with those expected to start following on from the Type 31.
Hopefully within the next few years we will see the start of the Type 45 replacement as that's likely to follow the Type 26 production run, possibly based upon the Type 26 concept. They also need to start the ball rolling on a New Mine Warfare & Survey ship replacements along with the Littorial Support Ships which may include a Hospital ship.
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,640
The main problem for the RN compared with the RAF and Army is that the Russian Navy is not the Soviet Red Banner Fleet.
Until 1990 it was relatively easy to play scissors, paper, stone? with the Sovs. The RN had refined its ASW assets to the Trafalgar, the T23 and the Merlin helo.
Since 1990 it has floundered around looking for ships to cope with a more amorphous set of roles.
T45 is an evolved version of the UK variant of the NF90 which was supposed to protect the Invincibles and T22/23s from Sov airstrikes.
Trying to design ships which will spend most of their lives in peacetime roles like policing fishing zones or drug/people traffickers and possibly the last week of their lives as part of a US Task Group in the Taiwan Straits? Dont envy the RN.
Until 1990 it was relatively easy to play scissors, paper, stone? with the Sovs. The RN had refined its ASW assets to the Trafalgar, the T23 and the Merlin helo.
Since 1990 it has floundered around looking for ships to cope with a more amorphous set of roles.
T45 is an evolved version of the UK variant of the NF90 which was supposed to protect the Invincibles and T22/23s from Sov airstrikes.
Trying to design ships which will spend most of their lives in peacetime roles like policing fishing zones or drug/people traffickers and possibly the last week of their lives as part of a US Task Group in the Taiwan Straits? Dont envy the RN.
Remember the original series were 11-40 were ASW, 41-60 AAW, 61-80 Air Direction and 81+ General Purpose.
VIKINGTANK
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 14 January 2015
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 111
Maybe a few soldiers would want their 50+ year old FV432/Bulldog (well it was called a FV432 when I was driving it) replaced before we talk about new ships and slinging things into space. Just saying ....................
What will Boxer replace? Also why not buy extra Ares to replace FV432, or are they too expensive? What about Stormer, proven vehicle and already in service so has an established support system that could be expanded? Or what about Warrior how many are intended to be upgraded and could any balance be used to replace it?
Also what about the story that the whole fleet of Panthers were to be sold? What is the likely replacement if it is true JSTVL?
Also what about the story that the whole fleet of Panthers were to be sold? What is the likely replacement if it is true JSTVL?
VIKINGTANK
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 14 January 2015
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 111
To answer your questions; Boxer is a new vehicle for the Strike Bdes (replacing Mastiffs pretending to be APCs). There is currently no money to replace the FV432 although Boxer or the former Warrior Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicles (ABSV) program, old turretless re-roled Warriors, would be suitable but the ABSV program is not currently funded. Remember only 245 Warriors will get the full Warrior Capability Sustainment Program (WCSP) with a new turret (380 in total will receive updates) so that leaves 300ish spare hulls. I think more Ares is OK but expensive and I have no idea on how much room is in the back. Stormer is now only in British service for the Stormer HVM air defence vehicle and a support variant. Panther is/has left service and will be replaced by the US JVLT. Hope that helps.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 5,744
- Reaction score
- 5,640
We should do what we did in WW2 get our main ally to supply us with the kit we need.
This might be the US or the EU (Germany or France in practice).
We should concentrate on our people and train them well, and look after them properly.
This might be the US or the EU (Germany or France in practice).
We should concentrate on our people and train them well, and look after them properly.
I'd go for German equipment, they will be looking to offset some of the development cost of their new equipment, so we would be in a stronger position over the overt patriotism of the French. Also considering the British Army is now larger than German (who would have thought it).
VIKINGTANK
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 14 January 2015
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 111
Correct ref crew reduction and they were also a bit of a maintenance hog. Also the rear stowage area was not included in the armour protected area. Did you notice that the Russians built it as the Rys' in Russia under licence?
Similar threads
-
Australia’s 10 major defence projects that are late and over budget
- Started by Pioneer
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
