Re-arming the UK: What equipment? and how much?

zen said:
I stand by my warning, and this piece mates with it and the likely origin post-David Betts piece on increasing risks of Civil War.
Conscription planning post 2022 would not take 3 years to complete. That is just lifting out old plans and updating. The much more logical case for why this is coming out now, is the full realisation of how fragile Civil Infrastructure is.
Not helped by the results of recent wargaming simulations.
-----
‘Home Guard’ to protect UK from infrastructure attack

A civilian force of thousands would guard vital facilities such as airports and nuclear plants under proposals for ‘pre-war era’

Harry Yorke, Deputy Political Editor
Caroline Wheeler, Political Editor

Saturday May 17 2025, 10.30pm BST, The Sunday Times
www.thetimes.com

‘Home Guard’ to protect UK from infrastructure attack

Thousands may be recruited into a civilian force to guard vital facilities such as airports and nuclear plants under proposals for ‘pre-war era’
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine how what threat “Dad’s Army” would be protecting against? Current events indicate a need for air defense against low end threats, like prop powered long range drones. However, there’s not much need for volunteers standing sentry duty. If anything, it might be more useful to revive the Royal Observer Corp than the Home Guard.
 
TinWing said:
I can’t imagine how what threat “Dad’s Army” would be protecting against? Current events indicate a need for air defense against low end threats, like prop powered long range drones. However, there’s not much need for volunteers standing sentry duty. If anything, it might be more useful to revive the Royal Observer Corp than the Home Guard.
Click to expand...

Protecting CNI...look at Ukraine and recruitment of people over the internet for nefarious acts. We also had a recent case of some criminals receiving payment to torch some buildings with Ukrainian aid in....
 
timmymagic said:
Many don't. A significant number would have happily remained at the pre-2014 state of affairs rather than be bounced into confrontation with the West. But...Putin practices classic divide and rule. There are competing groups around him, that effectively balance each other out...it might well be that the only way that this balance works in practice for a potential successor, one who in the short term could appease both sides before establishing his rule, is to follow Putin's already set path...
Click to expand...
Fair point.

I hope you're wrong about that, but fair point about the significant probability.
 
The UK rose their defence spending to 2.3% of GDP (15% increase from 2 years ago).
Yet they gave away about 50 EF Typhoons Tranche 1, 30 Helicopters (Puma and CH-47s) 55 drones and 5 ships.
And as far as I know, all AS-90 SPGs have been sent to Ukraine, and will only be replaced in 2030 by a Boxer-based SPG.
And it appears their personnel is at minimum levels…
 
From the rumour mill, but indicative of a lot of political conflict going on behind the scenes.

Nicholas Drummond
@nicholadrummond

The UK SDR was meant to be published this week. Unfortunately, its has been rejected for the umpteenth time by the Government, presumably with Treasury input.

My sources tell me that George Robertson, Richard Barrons, and Fiona Hill have between them produced an outstanding document that presents an overwhelming case for an immediate uplift in the Defence budget.

Given that the Government’s current spending plans are under such pressure, it is understandably terrified of the budget implications created by the SDR. Britain is broke. We have to recognise this.

A peace deal between Russia and Ukraine is desirable because it would reduce pressure for a short-term increase in the Defence budget, but whatever happens Russia and Vladimir Putin will remain a long-term problem.

Therefore, we have no choice but to define a pathway and timetable for growing UK defence
 
zen said:
From the rumour mill, but indicative of a lot of political conflict going on behind the scenes.

Nicholas Drummond
@nicholadrummond

The UK SDR was meant to be published this week. Unfortunately, its has been rejected for the umpteenth time by the Government, presumably with Treasury input.

My sources tell me that George Robertson, Richard Barrons, and Fiona Hill have between them produced an outstanding document that presents an overwhelming case for an immediate uplift in the Defence budget.

Given that the Government’s current spending plans are under such pressure, it is understandably terrified of the budget implications created by the SDR. Britain is broke. We have to recognise this.

A peace deal between Russia and Ukraine is desirable because it would reduce pressure for a short-term increase in the Defence budget, but whatever happens Russia and Vladimir Putin will remain a long-term problem.

Therefore, we have no choice but to define a pathway and timetable for growing UK defence
Click to expand...
Makes me wonder if there's a way to get the unclassified summary published?
 
Grey Havoc said:
Probably not, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
That's really too bad. I'd like to see what they consider the UK's primary threats are.



Grey Havoc said:
In other news:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Britain to unleash army of hackers on Putin

New Cyber and Electromagnetic Command will oversee £1bn spend to take on hostile states
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

Overegging the pudding there, in more ways than one, methinks.
Click to expand...
I'm honestly wondering if cyber should be a military asset at all, given the... typical personality traits of hackers and their lack of compatibility with typical military discipline.

Seems to belong more in MI5/6 (or CIA, for the Americans) space than in the military.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm honestly wondering if cyber should be a military asset at all, given the... typical personality traits of hackers and their lack of compatibility with typical military discipline.

Seems to belong more in MI5/6 (or CIA, for the Americans) space than in the military.
Click to expand...
On the other hand some of the first hackers back in the day were Siginters.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm honestly wondering if cyber should be a military asset at all, given the... typical personality traits of hackers and their lack of compatibility with typical military discipline.
Click to expand...
Works just fine, from personal experience.
 
Typical 20th Century-style military discipline will always be a problem for many with IT backgrounds. But the problem isn't the nerds, it is that style of discipline. Just as you want Red Team members to break with tradition on exercises, you should want your cyber security teams to be outside of the military norms.

An insoluble challenge is finding military salaries high enough to tempt people away from IT. Latvia found an alternative when it recruited 100 x volunteers for its National Guard cyber security unit (back in 2013). It turns out that the same nationalist nerds who resist joining up (and being bullied through their inductions) will happily volunteer to serve in a dedicated unit which values their real skill set.

-- https://www.zs.mil.lv/lv/zemessardz...-un-elektromagnetiskas-karadarbibas-bataljons
 
Though it mentions the F-35A. It says other aircraft types are under consideration.

Britain wants to purchase fighter jets capable of firing tactical nuclear weapons, in a major expansion of the deterrent intended to counter the growing threat posed by Russia.


Sir Keir Starmer’s government is in highly sensitive talks over the move, which would represent the biggest development in the UK’s deterrent since the Cold War and a recognition that the world has entered a more dangerous nuclear era.


John Healey, the defence secretary, and Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the head of the armed forces, are looking to acquire American-made fighter jets capable of launching gravity bombs with lower power than conventional nukes.

Starmer has also given his backing and discussions with the Pentagon are believed to have taken place.
Click to expand...
Senior sources said the UK was looking at procuring Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Lightning stealth fighter jet, which has recently been ordered by the German Luftwaffe, although other types of aircraft are thought to be under consideration.
Click to expand...
www.thetimes.com

British fighter jets to carry nuclear bombs

American-made planes armed with tactical weapons would be the UK’s biggest defence expansion since the Cold War
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com
 
That is a big change in strategy if it's true.

Also raises a big question for GCAP - if we have to buy American in order to get a B61 (or an Anglofied B61), then sure as hell it won't be integrated into a tri-national GCAP which will have far superior range and payload capability.
It also means complicating the joint F-35B force and I suspect if an additional squadron or two of F-35As appear, that means a reduction of the same amount of Typhoons.

That's even before we get into dual-keys and the likely tabloid backlash of spending millions on bombs and planes the US owns - AKA 'The KILL switch' which seems to be mandatory for every US bit of kit ever sold in some people's minds.
 
Please bear in mind various policies be floated out in the media to assess the population's reaction.

It also can be leaked out by various factions. From those advocating it, to those who oppose it.

I would hold off on this, as the logic of national interests and cost implications likely will sink it.
 
Do you think other aircraft types could include the B-21?
 
What other jets are there that are nuclear-capable? F-16s, maybe F-15EXs? Rafale (with ASMP) would require French dual-keys.

GCAP could be designed with that capability, but the UK would need their own weapons and not dual-keys for that.
 
zen said:
I would hold off on this, as the logic of national interests and cost implications likely will sink it.
Click to expand...
I'm sure we will have plenty to mull over tomorrow when the review is published.
Likely it will be vague gobbledegook and promises of jam tomorrow with broad brush statements, but I live in hope it might actually have some genuine detail.
 
Flyaway said:
Though it mentions the F-35A. It says other aircraft types are under consideration.



www.thetimes.com

British fighter jets to carry nuclear bombs

American-made planes armed with tactical weapons would be the UK’s biggest defence expansion since the Cold War
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com
Click to expand...
Bringing back RAF Nuclear weapons would be a massive project, not just the Weapons and Aircraft.

The Bomb dumps used back in the day at RAF Marham and Honington are no-longer operational, not sure what Lossiemouth have but IIRC they had no "special" storage area.

So you have to build new storage sites, which are not cheap.

Then you have to keep them secure, the RAF Police then RAF regiment held that responsibility, that was a significant amount of personnel. The RAF got rid of WE.177 in 1998? so there's no organisational memory of how to do it, it'll all need re-inventing.

Thats a lot of time, money and person power on it's own let alone the other bits.
 
So the RAF are getting planes to carry nuclear bombs at long last, what are the chances it will be the F-35A or even at a stretch the B-21 but I fear that would just be too expensive.
 
bob225 said:
Then you have to keep them secure, the RAF Police then RAF regiment held that responsibility, that was a significant amount of personnel. The RAF got rid of WE.177 in 1998? so there's no organisational memory of how to do it, it'll all need re-inventing.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough security of nuclear assets was raised at the RAF Historical Society conference in April 2024 in relation to a talk on the RAF Regiment during the Cold War.
It seems from the Q&A session that there are still some serving members of the RAF Regiment who were part of assisting the 510st Tactical Missile Wing in its security, the same response from an Air Commodore hinted that such needs were being looked into.

But as today's events in Russia have shown, the security needs are somewhat more onerous than a couple of lines of barbed wire fencing and a few roaming guard dogs.

But yes, fundamentally I'm suspicious of newspaper articles like this. It feels like too much a major change to be slipped to the Times to announce. Probably just speculation or someone over-egging F-35A negotiations for their own ends.
 
I don't see how B61 actually helps the UK or Europe.
Much as I'm not convinced by F-35A.
US forces stationed in the UK so armed might make sense, and explains the work on resurrection of such storage as a prelude to their return.
That gives UK Elite an excuse "evil Trump put them there under old NATO clauses", which they can sell the population.
It gives the US options to expand or withdraw nuclear weapons from Europe. Using the UK as a staging post.
This might also explain talk of F-35A, not as UK aircraft, but US stationed in the UK.

For the UK....And Europe...
Resurrection of domestic tactical (low yield) weapons is a more logical case if one desires less reliance on the US.
Frankly only the UK is positioned to keep NPT, CTBT and NATO nuclear forces planning in place. The only one who could expand to provide existing European NATO with alternative nukes.....for a contractual fee.
France doesn't make it's nukes so available to NATO or involve itself so deeply in such war planning.

Exactly how deeply intertwined US-UK NATO nuclear war planning is.....can be inferred from some of the supposed information that leaks out. Which even if deliberately false, carries hints at a near seamless integration.
 
Having our own nuclear bombs might be a solution zen, that was the same thing that the Canberra bombers faced during the 1950s when they were armed with early US nuclear bombs and we would face the same situation again with the B-61s.
 
Hood said:
It seems from the Q&A session that there are still some serving members of the RAF Regiment who were part of assisting the 510st Tactical Missile Wing in its security, the same response from an Air Commodore hinted that such needs were being looked into.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, just for context, The RAF Regt took over the role at some point in the 90's, early i think.

The RAF Police had done it for years, (working with the Royal Marines (I recall the name Comancho groups but maybe wrong) for convoy security). The RAF Regiment drawing back from Germany where dropped in as needed meaningful employment.

The way both groups approached the role differed, for a simple example the RAF police escorted on base with Landy's and the Reg pulled out the CVRT's.

Lets see what happens this week / in the future when they firm up details, personally i'm not sold on the idea.
 
Why do
FighterJock said:
Having our own nuclear bombs might be a solution zen, that was the same thing that the Canberra bombers faced during the 1950s when they were armed with early US nuclear bombs and we would face the same situation again with the B-61s.
Click to expand...
Why do we want B61?
The reason other NATO states have them on their territory is down to Cold War legacy.
Do we be so poor and desperate, we'd sign up to free fall bombs?
What's the point, when they could just expand German, Dutch, and Italian storage?
What does B61 sited in the UK bring to the table?

At least Domestic designed and built weapons have the merit of being different and independent.

For our and NATO benefit it would be better to get some ASMP variants!
 
Given the problems we've had in getting Astutes to sea, and the very (R) very extended Trident patrols, there simply isn't the Naval manpower available to run a 12 SSN plus 4 SSBN programme. It's fiction ; the number of RN personnel and the recruiting & training pipeline is the limiting factor to any SDR inspired expansion.
 
Flyaway said:
Do you think other aircraft types could include the B-21?
Click to expand...
I’m in general agreement with the rest of the replies to this, but here’s a geopolitical thought:

RAF B-21s out of the Chagos Islands.

I know it’s ‘out there’, and I know there’s a general ‘leave the IndoPacific to us’ with the current US administration, but it might appeal to Trump’s ‘dealmaking’, and from a British perspective could be seen as making the UK a bit indispensable to the US.
 
18 months build rate?
Implication being 18 years to build 12 SSN, presumably followed by an assumption of 4 SSBN.
5 built in 7.5 years, presumably achieves the fleet of 12 before first Astute OSD?
PWR-3 production of 16 sets for RN.

RAN supposedly getting 7-12 SSN-AUKUS. Implying 23-28 PWR-3

What is the training schedule for expansion of Submariner personnel?
First of 12 is likely mid 2030's
 
Yes the build time for 12 SSN would be waaaay beyond the timelines of this government, assuming that all 12 were actually funded and not delayed by successive governments. I'll probably retire before all 12 hit the water.

Astute commissioned in 2010 (only fully operational from 2014) - so her 25-year life expires in 2035, possibly a little later (although they were designed not to need refuelling, trips to the Far East and back are likely to sap the rods quicker than initially estimated just stooging about in the Barents, so her active life might be shorter than 25 years). That is only 10 years away, so I can't see the effective fleet rising much beyond current numbers (at 18 years the last would complete when the first would be nearing retirement).
 
XRNWEO said:
recruiting & training pipeline is the limiting factor to any SDR inspired expansion.
Click to expand...
Priorities for any credible expansion of the UK's (and indeed most countries) armed forces need to be something like:
  1. Recruitment and training of personnel
  2. Industrial capacity
  3. War reserves of materiel
  4. Shiny toys that look good in the press
 
Long build times relative to the potential for future conflicts.

An accelerated schedule might see SSN-AUKUS RN-01 in 2030-32, depending on SSN-AUKUS RAN-01 schedule.

The key questions now relate to capacity in industry and the training system.
Can the RN scale up training throughput?
Can build rate be accelerated?
 
XRNWEO said:
Given the problems we've had in getting Astutes to sea, and the very (R) very extended Trident patrols, there simply isn't the Naval manpower available to run a 12 SSN plus 4 SSBN programme. It's fiction ; the number of RN personnel and the recruiting & training pipeline is the limiting factor to any SDR inspired expansion.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. But recruiting more people is really easy.
Just double the pay and improve conditions and benefits across the board. If that's not enough then triple the pay.

If manpower is short, that's more often than not by design.
 
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Royal Navy escort fleet to grow by 78% to 25 ships: report

The Royal Navy could see its destroyer and frigate fleet grow from 14 to 25 vessels, marking the most significant expansion of Britain’s surface escort force in a generation.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Interesting, and more good news if true. Likely referring to the MRSS.
 
Big_Zukini said:
Perhaps. But recruiting more people is really easy.
Just double the pay and improve conditions and benefits across the board. If that's not enough then triple the pay.

If manpower is short, that's more often than not by design.
Click to expand...
If you've got the power of the state, you don't even need to do that. You can just say 'you, you and you - parade square at 0900 Monday, or prison van at 1000'. Plenty of reasons why you might not want to do either. But both options exist.

Getting them trained is a much bigger problem. Before you can open the recruiting taps, you need to recruit and train the people who'll train the expansion wave. Managing that is actually quite difficult.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom