Buy more foreign weapons to save money, Armed Forces told

Also: take old weapons and vehicles, still functional but past their prime, and rather than melting them down or leaving them to the Taliban, sell them to the American public.

Do I want an obsolete M1 Abrams? Kinda. Can I afford one? No. Should the guy who wants one *and* can afford one be able to buy one? Sure. And imagine Red Bull with their own fleet of F-14s.
 
No need to bring partisan politics into the topic.

Where other trustworthy countries have decent products, it makes sense, especially for products off the bleeding edge.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
No need to bring partisan politics into the topic.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any of that.

overscan (PaulMM) said:
Where other trustworthy countries have decent products, it makes sense, especially for products off the bleeding edge.
Click to expand...
Even untrustworthy countries. Just buy through side-channels, as the CIA did when buying Soviet titanium for the SR-71. I can think of a *lot* of uses the US, NATO, various western nations could have for mountains of AK-47 and RPG-7s.
 
It's behind a paywall so no idea what the article says.
Seems a bit of an odd angle given how many of the MoD's programmes are either multinational or foreign-sourced already. Type 31 and Ajax are rehashed foreign designs for example. There is something to said in favour of off-the-shelf purchases though instead of specific customisation for little gain.

Seems to be the same old dogma, outsource everything and buy cheap from abroad. The MoD has been outsourcing services non-stop since the late 1980s and doesn't seem much better off for it.
 
Pioneer said:
Buy more foreign weapons to save money, Armed Forces told: Military ‘characterised by inefficiency’ should outsource some services, think tank says

Howard Mustoe, 24-11-2023

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/h/hk-ho/howard-mustoe/

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Not paying or subscribing for what sounds like drivel. As if we don't buy foreign already!

If anything what the Ukrainian business has prompted is a realisation we need more sources not less and that closing production down for the sake of 'efficiency' has left the West with insufficient supply.

It's also shown that systems of foreign origin be subject to foreign control. Thus German approval is needed for gifting Leopard tanks to Ukraine, US approval for GMLRS etc....

It's almost as if this obsession with foreign is either a feature of self hate of one's country or straight up self interest of individuals who gain from these foreign suppliers. Even if that comes at the expense of their country.
 
This is a Telegraph pundit quoting a paper from the Institute of Economic Affairs (the people who basically wrote Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng's budget for them).

Somewhat moot, after January 2025 we'll have a different government in power which actually cares about Industrial Policy and understands basic concepts like "using the state to spend money" and "using Parliament to pass legislation, not as platform to advertise your next article for the Spectator".
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'd love to get one of the L86 LSWs for grins. US laws make that a pain, though.
Click to expand...
Get it through Pepsi.

pepsi-with-points.jpg
 
zen said:
It's almost as if this obsession with foreign is either a feature of self hate of one's country or straight up self interest of individuals who gain from these foreign suppliers.
Click to expand...
Or Both.
Actually, why not both - perfectly logical to steal from those whom you hate.
 
Dilandu said:
What about the more obvious way of having at least some government-owned military industry facilities, instead of full-private ones?
Click to expand...
Public-private partnerships are often fairly successful. And having military/civilian joint *products* can be a dandy way to go. 9mm, 5.56, 7.62, etc. rounds are popular with both civilians and military; having huge ammo factories meant to crank out Amry bullets by the billions is great, but having them crank out even more billions for the civvie market is better. it keeps them running when the military is in down time, and makes it straightforward to speed up production when things pop off. While the civilians rarely buy 105 mm howitzer rounds, a fair amount of materials and staff can be used for conventional ammo.
 
Dilandu said:
What about the more obvious way of having at least some government-owned military industry facilities, instead of full-private ones?
Click to expand...

The blindingly obvious one in the UK's case is Royal Ordnance....

BAE's stewardship of it has been disastrous, ably assisted by the MoD....

Small arms production....gone
Tank factories....gone
Artillery Propellant production....gone...now a housing estate...
War reserve shell production....gone
Large calibre barrel manufacturing....gone

Basically near everything that RO actually did BAE have managed to close....and wouldn't it be great to have now....
 
Dilandu said:
What about the more obvious way of having at least some government-owned military industry facilities, instead of full-private ones?
Click to expand...
What you've described is a good idea, and was broadly how British procurement was run before the 1980s, but this is the Institute of Economic Affairs. They don't have good ideas. See this excerpt from the article below:

Screenshot_20231127-083636~2.png
 
A link to the paper: https://iea.org.uk/media/defence-outsourcing-could-save-taxpayer-money-says-new-iea-paper/

I expected a little better of Keith Hartley given the work he's done in this area for years.
I'm not sure I agree with some of the analysis offered, I've yet to see much evidence of a PFI that's actually worked and not ended up being a profit-making scam. Also one technical error, SAR was always a Ministry of Transport responsibility but it abdicated that responsibility to the MoD because it had no assets of its own to do the job nor the drive to obtain such a capability itself and paying the MoD to do it was cheaper at that time.
The notion of wars using less weapons by 2050 seems rather flawed given how Ukraine has pretty much burnt through 30 years of warstocks from almost all the major Western/NATO nations. Weapons may well have got smarter but they have gotten more expensive and the number of potential targets hasn't reduced.

A link to the paper: https://iea.org.uk/media/defence-outsourcing-could-save-taxpayer-money-says-new-iea-paper/
 
Hood said:
What the hell did I just read?

More radical suggestions would be for Professors to actually get real jobs - and no I don't mean cozy directorships with BAE.
Click to expand...
I suspect that's a toned down version of someone proposing we flog the Army and the RAF to investment banks, then get them to compete with each other for the contract to provide air defence for the UK. This is an outfit that believes, at its core, that the ideal size of the public sector is zero.
 
Yellow Palace said:
This is an outfit that believes, at its core, that the ideal size of the public sector is zero.
Click to expand...
So people who might read Machiaveli's 'The Prince' but not understand it.....
Their position is only acceptable when they turn up fully ready for war themselves at their own expense.
 
Dilandu said:
What about the more obvious way of having at least some government-owned military industry facilities, instead of full-private ones?
Click to expand...
If you're not careful, you end up with highly inefficient suppliers. Example, the US M14 program.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Public-private partnerships are often fairly sucssesfull
Click to expand...
Often, but not always. For exanple, the current US 155-mm shell crisis is caused by reluctance of private buisness to maintain shell-making facilities just in case they may be required in future. Shells aren't exactly the high-profit goods, and with large supplies and low demands there isn't much reasons to produce more.
 
Dilandu said:
Often, but not always. For exanple, the current US 155-mm shell crisis is caused by reluctance of private buisness to maintain shell-making facilities just in case they may be required in future. Shells aren't exactly the high-profit goods, and with large supplies and low demands there isn't much reasons to produce more.
Click to expand...
The way ICBM manufacturer were kept in the business was to keep *low* rate production, often of motors to be used up on test stands. So theoretically things can be spooled up as needed. The same *should* be done with the likes of artillery... even when not needed, fire up the production system every now and then and crank out a few hundred rounds. Insert witty politically divisive joke HERE about what to do with the shells, where to aim them, etc. yes, those small-batch shells will cost a bundle, but it'll be worth it when the SHTF.
 
Orionblamblam said:
The way ICBM manufacturer were kept in the business was to keep *low* rate production, often of motors to be used up on test stands.
Click to expand...
Considering how many problems US now have with developing just a new silo-based ICBM - while even North Korea already managed to field road-mobile one - I wouldn't call this practice an outstanding sucsess.
 
Dilandu said:
Considering how many problems US now have with developing just a new silo-based ICBM - while even North Korea already managed to field road-mobile one - I wouldn't call this practice an outstanding sucsess.
Click to expand...
Oh, agreed. I was involved in the development of a "Minuteman IV" proposal 20 years ago, and it was a CF. All anybody *really* knew how to do was play Legos with existing hardware. There were *lots* of problems... none of which I imagine have gotten better since.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Oh, agreed. I was involved in the development of a "Minuteman IV" proposal 20 years ago, and it was a CF. All anybody *really* knew how to do was play Legos with existing hardware. There were *lots* of problems... none of which I imagine have gotten better since.
Click to expand...
The only difference is now the last of the greybeards have retired.

If you actually want a MMIII replacement on budget/schedule, our best bet is D5LE in silos. As you do it, pursue a massive modernization of the launch equipment. Use that to build up knowledge of how to do it properly, and then backport the new systems to the later versions of Columbia class.
 
But on topic, I think for small militaries, this is reasonable, as if you can only afford one - it's probably better to have a kitted out SAM system/fighter force than an anemic fighter force / ground based SAM system.

What's more telling that the UK is abandoning any notion of being a world leader, which is a bit tragic.
 
zevets said:
If you actually want a MMIII replacement on budget/schedule, our best bet is D5LE in silos. As you do it, pursue a massive modernization of the launch equipment. Use that to build up knowledge of how to do it properly, and then backport the new systems to the later versions of Columbia class.
Click to expand...
Ah, like the difference between the D5backfit and D5 initially installed systems in the Ohios...
 
Orionblamblam said:
Public-private partnerships are often fairly successful. And having military/civilian joint *products* can be a dandy way to go. 9mm, 5.56, 7.62, etc. rounds are popular with both civilians and military; having huge ammo factories meant to crank out Amry bullets by the billions is great, but having them crank out even more billions for the civvie market is better. it keeps them running when the military is in down time, and makes it straightforward to speed up production when things pop off. While the civilians rarely buy 105 mm howitzer rounds, a fair amount of materials and staff can be used for conventional ammo.
Click to expand...
Did you forget that only a tiny fraction of UK citizens own guns?
Hence only a tiny domestic market for ammunition.

…. nothing compared to the millions of Americans who own guns ….
…. even Australians and Canadians own only a tiny fraction of the numbers of guns owned by Americans ….
 
riggerrob said:
Did you forget that only a tiny fraction of UK citizens own guns?
Hence only a tiny domestic market for ammunition.
Click to expand...
Nevermind how little is in military calibers... seems like most UK civilian firearms are fairly heavy hunting calibers or shotguns, not many pistols.
 
riggerrob said:
Did you forget that only a tiny fraction of UK citizens own guns?
Hence only a tiny domestic market for ammunition.
Click to expand...

Ye of little business vision! A tiny fraction of the public own guns? That means there's a HUGE untapped market. At one time only a tiny fraction of the public owned TVs, now a large fraction of the public can apparently have their homes walked into and their stuff taken to pay off TV licenses.
 
zevets said:
The only difference is now the last of the greybeards have retired.

If you actually want a MMIII replacement on budget/schedule, our best bet is D5LE in silos.
Click to expand...
Or new-build Minuteman III's. We *might* be able to do that, but a lot of the components will doubtless still be those used in the early 60's. Some of the stuff we looked at for the hypothetical MMIV used *clockwork* components straight from the 1950's because it was easier paperwork-wise than updating to modern (i.e. cheaper and waaaay lighter) equivalents.
 
If what @timmymagic says of the state of British munitions & ordinance is any guide . . . (see below),

Small arms production....gone​
Tank factories....gone​
Artillery Propellant production....gone...now a housing estate...​
War reserve shell production....gone​
Large calibre barrel manufacturing....gone​

then the UK seems left with little choice--in the short term--for many weapons systems requirements. Buy foreign to grow the force, with possibilities for license production, while rebuilding over the long term the defense industrial base.

It's amazing that the seemingly mighty USA, while--of course--having a much greater indigenous production capability than the UK, is still hobbled by the contraction of our domestic ship-building industry. There was an excellent Wall Street Journal article on the subject a few weeks ago.

The US, the UK--really all of the Western states that had truly independent defense industrial bases (DIBs), an enormous amount of capacity was eliminated post-Cold War and its frankly never coming back. The "peace dividend" co-occurred with the overall deep de-industrialization of the 1990s.

Actually, had the Cold War not ended--let's say Gorbachev is successfully ousted in a coup--it's an interesting alt-history question of whether the closure of so much manufacturing capability would have occurred at all! Or at least on the same scale.

I realize the discussion topic is on the British defense industry in particular, but my point is Britain's situation is not unique.

Or, perhaps more specifically, if the UK permanently loses most of its DIB it will be in the same league as many other European allies that buy almost everything from foreign sources.

Now, there is perhaps another way to look at this state of affairs. Look at Australia. Yes, it can produce some specific high-end systems like its new amphibious warfare ships, but it buys almost all its weaponry from abroad, almost all from the US. And it has no problem with this.

The AUKUS deal will theoretically see Australian shipyards learn the trade of building nuclear submarines, but not before the preceding stage in which Australia purchases or leases nuclear subs from the US or UK.

Granted, Australia never had the outsized DIB the UK had and still retains much of. For Britain to adopt an Australian-style procurement strategy would involve some humbling, if not humiliation.
 
JohnCitizen said:
If what @timmymagic says of the state of British munitions & ordinance is any guide . . . (see below),

Small arms production....gone​
Tank factories....gone​
Artillery Propellant production....gone...now a housing estate...​
War reserve shell production....gone​
Large calibre barrel manufacturing....gone​

then the UK seems left with little choice--in the short term--for many weapons systems requirements. Buy foreign to grow the force, with possibilities for license production, while rebuilding over the long term the defense industrial base.

It's amazing that the seemingly mighty USA, while--of course--having a much greater indigenous production capability than the UK, is still hobbled by the contraction of our domestic ship-building industry. There was an excellent Wall Street Journal article on the subject a few weeks ago.

The US, the UK--really all of the Western states that had truly independent defense industrial bases (DIBs), an enormous amount of capacity was eliminated post-Cold War and its frankly never coming back. The "peace dividend" co-occurred with the overall deep de-industrialization of the 1990s.

Actually, had the Cold War not ended--let's say Gorbachev is successfully ousted in a coup--it's an interesting alt-history question of whether the closure of so much manufacturing capability would have occurred at all! Or at least on the same scale.

I realize the discussion topic is on the British defense industry in particular, but my point is Britain's situation is not unique.

Or, perhaps more specifically, if the UK permanently loses most of its DIB it will be in the same league as many other European allies that buy almost everything from foreign sources.

Now, there is perhaps another way to look at this state of affairs. Look at Australia. Yes, it can produce some specific high-end systems like its new amphibious warfare ships, but it buys almost all its weaponry from abroad, almost all from the US. And it has no problem with this.

The AUKUS deal will theoretically see Australian shipyards learn the trade of building nuclear submarines, but not before the preceding stage in which Australia purchases or leases nuclear subs from the US or UK.

Granted, Australia never had the outsized DIB the UK had and still retains much of. For Britain to adopt an Australian-style procurement strategy would involve some humbling, if not humiliation.
Click to expand...

Just to update on that....Ukraine has had an effect....and it turns out some of that capability is coming back rather quickly when there is a will....

- Small arms production....gone - Small arms production does exist on a small scale, Accuracy International is around, plus FN took over the Manroy Engineering business. They used to produce all of the British Army's GPMG and M2 HMG. This may be the basis of an indigenous capability. FN are, in particular, pushing the EVOLYS platform and looking to bring back GPMG and other maintenance to the Manroy facility after it was moved unsuccessfully abroad. There is real potential there to produce small arms at scale.

- Tank factories....gone - The big facility at ROF Leeds is gone. But....there is still the Pearson facility in Newcastle (the old Armstrong works), RBSL in Telford and GD in Merthyr Tydfil. WFEL are also doing work on Boxer. There is significant capability, but it would need real impetus to save and re-establish full design capability. All of these sites are now pretty busy with Boxer, Ajax, CR3 including Trophy production and integration and Armoured Engineering gear. - Worth noting that all the 4 facilities mentioned are exceptionally modern...

- Artillery propellant production....gone - This might be coming back with new facilities being developed at BAE Glascoed, increased explosive manufacturing and filling has been funded for the site which is already pretty large.

- War reserve shell production....gone - Turns out we actually have greater shell production capability than any other country in Europe with BAE Washington, primarily due to the fact that it is the newest shell production facility in the West (in a stroke of luck we had to build a new facility as the previous one at nearby Birtley dated back to WW1 and was riddled with asbestos). MoD is now funding a second shell production line which should increase annual production capability to 1.5m shell per year by end of 2025....which is more than the US will have...

- Large calibre barrel manufacturing....gone - Now looks to be returning as part of the MPF programme, all bidders have UK barrel manufacturing in their proposals, only finished in 2018 so should be easy to re-establish. BAE at Barrow in Furness are also to re-start M777 production (all the complex titanium work is undertaken there) which finished in 21/22 under a US contract. AEI Systems also have the capability to go up to and including 105mm....and the MoD does own Forgemasters....
 
Last edited:
riggerrob said:
Did you forget that only a tiny fraction of UK citizens own guns?
Hence only a tiny domestic market for ammunition.
Click to expand...

This is true. But....why not produce for export? You could make 5.56 in any volume you like for the US civilian market and sell it easily...the US civilian shooter market is always complaining about shortages of 5.56, 9mm and 7.62....

If I was BAE at Radway Green I'd be running 3 shifts principally for the US market....
 
timmymagic said:
Just to update on that....Ukraine has had an effect....and it turns out some of that capability is coming back rather quickly when there is a will....

- Small arms production....gone - Small arms production does exist on a small scale, Accuracy International is around, plus FN took over the Manroy Engineering business. They used to produce all of the British Army's GPMG and M2 HMG. This may be the basis of an indigenous capability. FN are, in particular, pushing the EVOLYS platform and looking to bring back GPMG and other maintenance to the Manroy facility after it was moved unsuccessfully abroad. There is real potential there to produce small arms at scale.

- Tank factories....gone - The big facility at ROF Leeds is gone. But....there is still the Pearson facility in Newcastle (the old Armstrong works), RBSL in Telford and GD in Merthyr Tydfil. WFEL are also doing work on Boxer. There is significant capability, but it would need real impetus to save and re-establish full design capability. All of these sites are now pretty busy with Boxer, Ajax, CR3 including Trophy production and integration and Armoured Engineering gear. - Worth noting that all the 4 facilities mentioned are exceptionally modern...

- Artillery propellant production....gone - This might be coming back with new facilities being developed at BAE Glascoed, increased explosive manufacturing and filling has been funded for the site which is already pretty large.

- War reserve shell production....gone - Turns out we actually have greater shell production capability than any other country in Europe with BAE Washington, primarily due to the fact that it is the newest shell production facility in the West (in a stroke of luck we had to build a new facility as the previous one at nearby Birtley dated back to WW1 and was riddled with asbestos). MoD is now funding a second shell production line which should increase annual production capability to 1.5m shell per year by end of 2025....which is more than the US will have...

- Large calibre barrel manufacturing....gone - Now looks to be returning as part of the MPF programme, all bidders have UK barrel manufacturing in their proposals, only finished in 2018 so should be easy to re-establish. BAE at Barrow in Furness are also to re-start M777 production (all the complex titanium work is undertaken there) which finished in 21/22 under a US contract.
Click to expand...
I'm glad to see a more optimistic take on the situation. I was quoting @timmymagic who I think looked at what defense industrial base capacity the UK once had recently with what exists at the moment; in doing that things can definitely look bleak I suppose. Glad to hear things might be turning around.

While everything in a political budget has an opportunity cost--dollars/pounds spent here can't be spent there, etc--it appears that a number of countries in Europe, along w/the USA, are re-investing not only in their front-line defenses but their defense industry and their war reserve stocks.

Of course if politicians are ever accused of spending too much on guns rather than butter, they can always point to the jobs associated with "guns." Especially if new facilities are being created or existing ones expanded.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom