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

What are we on now, the 14th defence review since 1945? The 3rd since 2020?

That's far more than any other NATO country. There is an obsession with policy and paperwork and policy wonks and none of those defence reviews has arguably had a positive impact (unless its a managed decline). We're always the wrong shape, wrong tech, wrong strategy, outdated, obsolete, too cutting edge, not enough manpower, not enough cash.

It's not doing us any favours.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Yes and no.

In the UK system, a lot of institutional power is held by the permanent Civil Service, with the elected offices giving direction and oversight. The result is that there's a tendency for things to keep going in the same direction, and a bit of a view that 'no matter who wins the election, the government gets in' - significant policy change is very hard, which is both a blessing and a curse.
Click to expand...
Does make you wonder, that if in a decade, we saw a Green government, would the institutions of state be able to resist a campaign of disarmament?
 
https://www.thetimes.com/article/15...3?shareToken=b7dd41503bab1506e9948665fb430c6c

Hidden, all the way at the bottom of the article, are yet more delays to the DIP.

The Times understands that Dan Jarvis, the new defence secretary, has been given two weeks to come up with a better defence investment plan with more money.
Click to expand...

Why on Earth does Jarvis now receive the option for procuring additional funding? Why not give it to Healey? Make it make sense!

Of course, in two weeks time, Burnham will probably have been elected in Makerfield, and a leadership challenge will be ongoing, so there's a chance this is just a delay to push the problem into the hands of the next PM.
 
Reuben James said:
Why on Earth does Jarvis now receive the option for procuring additional funding? Why not give it to Healey? Make it make sense!
Click to expand...
Likely because he's now got the ability to say "I'll publicly quit, too" to force more money out of Treasury.

"Minister, Parliament and HMGovernment has set HMArmed Forces a series of tasks, all of which are supposed to happen. But Parliament and HMTreasury have not released enough funds to accomplish all those tasks. My predecessor quit in protest of this. So now I tell Parliament and HMTreasury that this is what it will cost for HMArmed Forces to accomplish all the tasks that Parliament and HMGovernment have assigned. I am not here asking 'please sir, may I have a little more.' I am here to say 'either pay this full amount or tell HMArmed Forces on the record which tasks you are releasing them from!'"



Reuben James said:
Of course, in two weeks time, Burnham will probably have been elected in Makerfield, and a leadership challenge will be ongoing, so there's a chance this is just a delay to push the problem into the hands of the next PM.
Click to expand...
Very likely, IMO.
 
Hood said:
What are we on now, the 14th defence review since 1945? The 3rd since 2020?

That's far more than any other NATO country. There is an obsession with policy and paperwork and policy wonks and none of those defence reviews has arguably had a positive impact (unless its a managed decline). We're always the wrong shape, wrong tech, wrong strategy, outdated, obsolete, too cutting edge, not enough manpower, not enough cash.

It's not doing us any favours.
Click to expand...
They generally are done by fresh governments or after major geostrategic changes.
1957: To reflect the profound change in military aviation due to widespread adoption of air-to-air missiles and the nuclear ballistic missile, change in the army from Regiments to Cold War Brigade structure.
1966: Integration with NATO command structures and withdrawal of forces from East of Suez and Labour spending cuts due to financial constraints.
1975: To reflect détente and Cold War stalemate, established the Army of the Rhine and other standing European forces, focus on anti-submarine operations in the Atlantic and the creation of the British nuclear doctrine that stands to this day
1981: Thatcher naval cuts which led directly to the Falklands war
1990: Reduction in the army headcount of 20% by removing large standing forces across Europe because of the end of the Cold War, removal of frontline deployed fighter squadrons in Germany.
1994: Conservative military spending cuts due to the end of the Cold War, 'peace dividend'
1998: Incoming Labour government review deciding to increase military spending and create rapidly deployable intervention forces whist maintaining Trident. New investments in Special Forces and intelligence.
2003: Post 9/11 review continuing the trend to invest in rapidly deployable forces and reduce large slow moving force elements. Set the requirement to be able to participate in three simultaneous small-medium sized conflicts or one major conflict and one minor conflict simultaneously alongside allies.
2005: In light of the Iraq war; Recapitalisation of British defence manufacturing after it had been hollowed out by the Conservatives and ending legacy Conservative Cost Plus equipment supply contracts.
2010: Incoming Conservative-Liberal coalition made largest financial defence cuts since WW2, 2.5% of GDP to be reduced to 2.0%
2015: Conservative spending increase to 2.0% of GDP after they realised they had cut too much leaving massive unfunded defence procurement and the world was getting less stable again. Refocus on creating standing Middle East forces.
2021 (delayed from 2020): Slight increase in defence spending to 2.2% of GDP and need to create new allied command structures and deployments to replace ones lost due to Brexit.
2025: Incoming Labour, set spending at 2.5% of GDP to rise to 3.0% by 2030 and NATO commitment of 3.5% at some point during the 2030's.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
They generally are done by fresh governments or after major geostrategic changes.
1957: To reflect the profound change in military aviation due to widespread adoption of air-to-air missiles and the nuclear ballistic missile, change in the army from Regiments to Cold War Brigade structure.
1966: Integration with NATO command structures and withdrawal of forces from East of Suez and Labour spending cuts due to financial constraints.
1975: To reflect détente and Cold War stalemate, established the Army of the Rhine and other standing European forces, focus on anti-submarine operations in the Atlantic and the creation of the British nuclear doctrine that stands to this day
1981: Thatcher naval cuts which led directly to the Falklands war
1990: Reduction in the army headcount of 20% by removing large standing forces across Europe because of the end of the Cold War, removal of frontline deployed fighter squadrons in Germany.
1994: Conservative military spending cuts due to the end of the Cold War, 'peace dividend'
1998: Incoming Labour government review deciding to increase military spending and create rapidly deployable intervention forces whist maintaining Trident. New investments in Special Forces and intelligence.
2003: Post 9/11 review continuing the trend to invest in rapidly deployable forces and reduce large slow moving force elements. Set the requirement to be able to participate in three simultaneous small-medium sized conflicts or one major conflict and one minor conflict simultaneously alongside allies.
2005: In light of the Iraq war; Recapitalisation of British defence manufacturing after it had been hollowed out by the Conservatives and ending legacy Conservative Cost Plus equipment supply contracts.
2010: Incoming Conservative-Liberal coalition made largest financial defence cuts since WW2, 2.5% of GDP to be reduced to 2.0%
2015: Conservative spending increase to 2.0% of GDP after they realised they had cut too much leaving massive unfunded defence procurement and the world was getting less stable again. Refocus on creating standing Middle East forces.
2021 (delayed from 2020): Slight increase in defence spending to 2.2% of GDP and need to create new allied command structures and deployments to replace ones lost due to Brexit.
2025: Incoming Labour, set spending at 2.5% of GDP to rise to 3.0% by 2030 and NATO commitment of 3.5% at some point during the 2030's.
Click to expand...
Funny, it seems like we start to get then more regularly after 1990. Perhaps that to do with a less defined and visible threat after the fall of the USSR.
 
robunos said:
Why Healey resigned . . .
Click to expand...

And good on him! Doubtless the proposed Defence, Security, and Resilience Bank will pop up during the imminent 52nd G7 Summit at Évian-les-Bains (15-17 June).

HM Treasury will have its own PoV on its establishment/cost for the DSRB ... but they are up against a former Governor of the BoE. Should make the debate a bit more interesting ...
 
Given the government put up £650 million to subsidise EVs (and thus the global automotive industry) I would have thought £870 million for potentially much bigger defence savings and investment returns in the longer term would be worth it.

It's only the price of 3.5 Type 31 frigates or nearly a dozen F-35s...
 
Report that NATO members be questioning UK's leadership role if it's not stepping up it's forces.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2065363568506143191
View: https://x.com/EJ_Burrows/status/2065363568506143191

----
Report also out that F-35 fleet availability is down to 25%.
https://www.militarytimes.com/indus...n-4-f-35s-is-fully-mission-capable-gao-finds/

The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter’s readiness rates continued to decline through fiscal 2025, with the fleet’s full mission capable rate falling to 25%, according to a new Government Accountability Office report released Thursday.

The mission capable rate, which measures the percentage of time aircraft can perform at least one of their tasked missions, dropped from 67% in fiscal 2021 to 44% in fiscal 2025, GAO found.

The full mission capable rate, the share of time aircraft can perform all assigned missions, slid from 38% to 25% over the same period.
Air Force officials attributed part of the fiscal 2025 drop to new jets that couldn’t perform their missions because of software delays, along with scarce parts and corrosion problems, according to the report.
Click to expand...
----
I can tell you a certain military project has been descoped, and the jobs connected to that be up for review.
 
Last edited:
Telegraph reporting that Jarvis is to be told "no", he has to stay within the agreed settlement figure, he can push some projects further out/cancelled to fund other areas, but that's it.
 
robunos said:
The single biggest threat to HMGovernment in general is HMTreasury.
Click to expand...
Fair point.


robunos said:
I'm beginning to think that HMTreasury is controlled by Gollum and Smaug , on Job Share . . .
Click to expand...
My precious! :D


sparky42 said:
Telegraph reporting that Jarvis is to be told "no", he has to stay within the agreed settlement figure, he can push some projects further out/cancelled to fund other areas, but that's it.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest that Jarvis also resign in protest, then.
 
It's in the Telegraph, so take that into account, but they are reporting that the Challenger 3 project is now facing delays and issues as the turret gearbox isn't strong enough to handle the increased weight.
 
sparky42 said:
It's in the Telegraph, so take that into account, but they are reporting that the Challenger 3 project is now facing delays and issues as the turret gearbox isn't strong enough to handle the increased weight.
Click to expand...
They really ought to stop giving the army money.
 
sparky42 said:
I mean, not to be a smart arse but when was the last Army major project that came online on time/budget/spec?
Click to expand...
TBF, if we apply that as a condition, we wouldn't be giving the navy or the air force any money either.
 
Reuben James said:
TBF, if we apply that as a condition, we wouldn't be giving the navy or the air force any money either.
Click to expand...
I know, but on the other hand, designing and building next gen SSNs, or 6th gen fighter is inherently more risky than say Ajax or Challenger 3. I mean the additional weight added must have been known, was there a testing process to check that the existing gearbox could take it without stress? Seems a pretty basic question?
 
sparky42 said:
I know, but on the other hand, designing and building next gen SSNs, or 6th gen fighter is inherently more risky than say Ajax or Challenger 3. I mean the additional weight added must have been known, was there a testing process to check that the existing gearbox could take it without stress? Seems a pretty basic question?
Click to expand...
I agree on the whole.

The Army does seem to have suffered the most public procurement mishaps. Still, there are notable trends.

The RN's recent programmes have generally delivered top-tier capability, but have struggled to sustain that capability. The A-boats are supposedly comparable to the very latest in Russian submarine technology at the very least, likely somewhat better, but struggle to deploy regularly. The carriers deliver global strike capability, but lack available air wings and support ships, and have struggled with mechanical issues. The T45s offered world-leading radar, digital control and air warfare-management systems in the 2010s, but struggled with mechanical issues as well, and have not received adequate future-proofing.

To put it succinctly, British naval programmes succeed it delivering great potential, but a lack of investment in sustainment, upgrades and maintenance hamper procurement success through life.

The RAF's recent programmes I'm less well-versed on, but they seem to be characterised by delays upon delays. F-35B is technically brilliant, but with only 25-33% of the fleet being fully mission-capable at any one time, and massive delays in strike capability, it's hamstrung. Wedgetail deliveries are very slow, but it is the best system around.
 
Hence my post (#1,675) - you could give the MoD eleventy trillion quid and still end up with a load of duff crap.
Just tossing money at them isn't improving the quality or thought processes behind how procurement is actually planned and managed.
 
The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the Future Air Superiority Effectors programme (FASE) is currently in its pre-concept phase and that work is under way to establish a concept phase.
Does anyone know what this is？
 
zww11455 said:
The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the Future Air Superiority Effectors programme (FASE) is currently in its pre-concept phase and that work is under way to establish a concept phase.
Does anyone know what this is？
Click to expand...
The article with that subheading is from September last year. From the sound of it it was supposed to be an umbrella for upgrades and replacements to all of our AAMs but there's nothing on it since.
 
TorpedoJ said:
The article with that subheading is from September last year. From the sound of it it was supposed to be an umbrella for upgrades and replacements to all of our AAMs but there's nothing on it since.
Click to expand...
The United Kingdom and France have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to conduct a joint study into the development of a successor to the Meteor missile, one of the world's most advanced beyond-visual-range air-to-air weapons.
I don't know if there is any connection between these two
 
I would think that the next logical step would be a missile with a range of over 400km since China announced their long range missile and of course Russia with the R-37M.
 
Possibility is Stratus RS concept has been further evaluated and the anti-aircraft capability is better focused on a new AAM.

Though the use of dual pulse motors and stop-start motors is also changing the view on what can be done.
 
France is also planning to develop missiles similar to AIM174B, and it feels that there is too little information known about various missile projects in the UK
 
zww11455 said:
France is also planning to develop missiles similar to AIM174B, and it feels that there is too little information known about various missile projects in the UK
Click to expand...
Any links for that?
 
Hmmmm....Aster air launched is a possibility.....

Worrying if the UK is cut out, international projects be harder to cut and as we're seeing in other areas delaying expenditure is becoming impossible.

If France wants to tie the UK into it's ecosystem. Exclusion isn't the way forward.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom