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

Scott Kenny said:
Just about any "two blokes in a shed" can make AR receivers. Crud, I think there's 5 different companies in my city making them, some quite high-end and/or piston driven hybrids.
Click to expand...

It's going to need to be barrel manufacture as well...
 
The whole "stuff" and "two blokes in a shed" thing is about what could be done as opposed to what is or has been done.

The mention of Edgar Brothers is interesting (since Knight's L403A1 AIW was delivered by that Macclesfield firm). But is there any record of Knight's Armament having licensed any of its weapon designs to another manufacturer?
 
Apophenia said:
But is there any record of Knight's Armament having licensed any of its weapon designs to another manufacturer?
Click to expand...
Not that I am aware of.

My comment was intended to describe how simple some firearms are to make. I mean, there's people in the US making ARs at home, if they have a milling machine.

And again, IMO the best option in roughly AR format is the SIG MCX. Not particularly cheap, though.
 
Presumably from that French supplier that currently produces the top notch metal blanks?
 
Apophenia said:
The whole "stuff" and "two blokes in a shed" thing is about what could be done as opposed to what is or has been done.
Click to expand...
The 'two blokes in a shed' legend of AI conveniently forgets that if the MoD had realised they didn't have a manufacturing capability in place they wouldn't have gotten the contract. And that was for a few hundred L96s, not the 150,000 plus required for Project Grayburm.
 
DWG said:
The 'two blokes in a shed' legend of AI conveniently forgets that if the MoD had realised they didn't have a manufacturing capability in place they wouldn't have gotten the contract. And that was for a few hundred L96s, not the 150,000 plus required for Project Grayburm.
Click to expand...
AI didn't have a manufacturing facility when MoD went to check. They had a freshly-leased warehouse with a bunch of rifles in various states of assembly scattered around for MoD inspectors to see.
 
Some fallout of the Ajax project:
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Ajax programme boss sacked after safety failures

The senior official responsible for the British Army Ajax armoured vehicle programme has been removed from post following a ministerial review that found serious failures in how safety risks were reported to ministers.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
 
There is some nuance in what Pollard is saying about Nightfall....they might be partly backing away from total UK design and build, perhaps to open up the number of entrants.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Britain to test launch new ballistic missiles next year

The Ministry of Defence has set out new details on its Nightfall deep-strike missile programme for Ukraine, confirming development contracts will be awarded this spring, with production expected to begin in late 2027.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
 
timmymagic said:
There is some nuance in what Pollard is saying about Nightfall....they might be partly backing away from total UK design and build, perhaps to open up the number of entrants.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Britain to test launch new ballistic missiles next year

The Ministry of Defence has set out new details on its Nightfall deep-strike missile programme for Ukraine, confirming development contracts will be awarded this spring, with production expected to begin in late 2027.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Click to expand...
TBH, I thought that was always the plan anyway. I wonder if with the reduced spec. they're aiming for something M270/HIMARS compatible. 200kg to 500km should be possible with a modern missile ATACMS-sized.
 
Forest Green said:
TBH, I thought that was always the plan anyway. I wonder if with the reduced spec. they're aiming for something M270/HIMARS compatible. 200kg to 500km should be possible with a modern missile ATACMS-sized.
Click to expand...

They're absolutely not aiming for M270 compatible. US wouldn't allow MFOM access.
 
Should reinvestigate 140mm option for tanks now.

I really thought 40mm CTAS would have been a good move across platforms. Wasted opportunities there.
 
sparky42 said:
Isn't Nextor working on a 140mm for the proposed next gen European MBT?
Click to expand...

Yes, though given this is a Rheinmetall facility, they'll be much more interested in their own 130mm offering. It honestly looks like a tossup which will be better, and whether either offers enough improvement over 120mm to be worthwhile, especially given how scarce the Armata is proving to be.
 
Changing a hull is a very big deal. Complex network of logistics built around it.
Changing a turret (to fit a bigger gun) is much easier.
 
Flipside could be reexamining the old 110mm development. If it's lighter and retro-fitable into 105mm turrets.....
 
zen said:
Flipside could be reexamining the old 110mm development. If it's lighter and retro-fitable into 105mm turrets.....
Click to expand...
In a world of lighter and better recoil absorbing 120mm, a 110mm sounds like the worst of all worlds.
Titus K said:
A CV9040CT could have met the needs of the UK but maybe also France (likely in much smaller numbers as a tracked complement to the VBCI) … what could have been.
Click to expand...
The 40mm CTA, like the Challenger 3 and Ajax, is a vanity project.
Of course almost any alternative is more preferable.
 
www.bbc.co.uk

UK government considering increase in defence spending

The prime minister is considering meeting a 3% defence-spending target five years earlier than planned, the BBC learns.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Wondering whether the DIP might be funded in its entirety?

Additionally, is the consensus that Type 32, and by extent, additional escorts, are no longer on the card, especially considering the planned submarine fleet growth? There was that Ben Wallace 'frigate vs submarine' study that never saw the light of day, and something in me believes that the submarines may have won that.
 
Speculation, but I think the plan for semi-manned platforms is likely higher priority and more achievable in a shorter timescale.

The recent proposals from various shipbuilders for various patrol/survey/corvette type designs suggests their all eyeing such a contract.

Very pertinent being Norwegian, Danish, UK domestic and US all released studies that might fit in.the course of the last month.
 

Royal Navy sees hybrid shift as central to future force mix​

www.navalnews.com

Royal Navy sees hybrid shift as central to future force mix - Naval News

The UK Royal Navy (RN) sees its continuing shift to a ‘hybrid fleet’ as central to prevailing in future conflict, and is focused on accelerating delivery of the maritime uncrewed systems integral to this new ‘hybrid’ force structure,.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
This had to happen I think which is better than letting the highly skilled workforce sign onto the Jobcentre or even take early retirement.
 
Just as a general point with the cratering in voter support for the two main traditional UK political parties, they are currently both looking at less than an hundred seats after the next GE in 2029. I think the future for the UK defense has never been more uncertain.
 
FighterJock said:
This had to happen I think which is better than letting the highly skilled workforce sign onto the Jobcentre or even take early retirement.
Click to expand...

Problem is....and its always been the problem with Westlands, even in the days of big military helo orders, whats the plan for after? 23 aircraft doesn't take too long to produce...

They need a civil product line...but Leonardo puts all of that in Vergiate...
 
Sad that timmimagic, I always thought that the take over of Westland by what is now Leonardo was a big mistake by the then UK Government.
 
Big_Zukini said:
The 40mm CTA, like the Challenger 3 and Ajax, is a vanity project.
Of course almost any alternative is more preferable.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. It was based on extensive operational research and reached the right conclusion. Larger calibres were necessary, and rounds that could have more complex fuzing and still deliver a reasonable effect on target.

The US looking at 50mm XM-913 for XM-30 for the same reason....and combat in Ukraine validates that approach. The explosive effect on target is necessary and defeating positions behind barriers, in defilade or armour resistant to 30mm is critical.

UK and France got the theory and development of CT40 right...decades before it became apparent.
 
timmymagic said:
Absolutely not. It was based on extensive operational research and reached the right conclusion. Larger calibres were necessary, and rounds that could have more complex fuzing and still deliver a reasonable effect on target.

The US looking at 50mm XM-913 for XM-30 for the same reason....and combat in Ukraine validates that approach. The explosive effect on target is necessary and defeating positions behind barriers, in defilade or armour resistant to 30mm is critical.

UK and France got the theory and development of CT40 right...decades before it became apparent.
Click to expand...
No I agree with the assessment that a larger caliber is useful. Definitely. Just the 40mm specifically being a bad decision.
The UK and France field small ground armies relative to their size for apparent reasons. It would thus make more sense to not try to lead in caliber choice. Which is always a difficult choice.

The 50mm is just a modified 35mm and the US brings volume, so it's funny to see that.
 
Big_Zukini said:
The UK and France field small ground armies relative to their size for apparent reasons. It would thus make more sense to not try to lead in caliber choice. Which is always a difficult choice.
Click to expand...

At the time the UK and France were looking at fielding >1,800 vehicles with CT40 between them...

That, by any stretch, is not small....

And if no-one else was bothering someone needs to make the first step....similar story with UK and RARDEN in the late 60's...
 
From the article:
The Lib Dems have not provided an estimate of the cost of their proposal, which would far exceed the billions being spent on the planned replacement for Trident.

France, the only other European country with nuclear weapons, has always maintained a fully independent system.

The Lib Dems say France's approach proves a sovereign British capability is achievable.

They argue it could be done in two stages - developing a way to maintain the existing Trident weapons system domestically, and in the longer term manufacturing a fully British-made replacement.

The party has traditionally been split on the issue of Britain's nuclear weapons.

Many in the party have campaigned for multilateral disarmament - something party sources insist they still believe in, while saying they must reflect the reality of the global situation.
Click to expand...
 
Lord West of Spithead suggests it's approximately £120 billion. Or an increase from.2.3% of GDP on Defence to 2.7%
But keep in mind we're spending roughly half that already, so something like £60-70 billion extra.
 
Last edited:
What would happen if we went down the route of designing our own ballistic missiles instead of purchasing the Trident 2s from the US? And especially to the Dreadnought class submarine's?
 
FighterJock said:
What would happen if we went down the route of designing our own ballistic missiles instead of purchasing the Trident 2s from the US? And especially to the Dreadnought class submarine's?
Click to expand...

Technical?
We lack large solud fuel production and press.
We lack large solid rocket test.

Flight test, especially separation of bus and RVs from it to target requires certain facilities.

Domestic production of subcomponents would be expensive, partly due to small numbers, mostly due to establishing production.

Belpars for accurate delivery requires satellite measurements of air pressure, winds extra
 
FighterJock said:
What would happen if we went down the route of designing our own ballistic missiles instead of purchasing the Trident 2s from the US? And especially to the Dreadnought class submarine's?
Click to expand...
it will be INSANELY expensive(im talking at minimum high 10s if not 100s of billions over the lifetime of the system) and it would take the UK decades since it lacks the infra to build and mass produce it. The UK is now building this with project nightfall but the 2027 target is incredibly optimistic when nations with significantly more experience than the UK have taken a lot longer. And this is just a 500km tactical BM, not a strategic ICBM.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom