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

bob225 said:
(I recall the name Comancho groups but maybe wrong) for convoy security). T
Click to expand...
Comacchio Company/Comacchio Group/Fleet Protection Group, currently 43 Commando Fleet Protection Group.
 
The Strategic Defence Review white paper has now been published. Key pionts are:

The SDR’s vision for UK Defence:
  • Move to warfighting readiness—establishing a more lethal ‘integrated force’ equipped for the future, and strengthened homeland defence.
  • Engine for growth—driving jobs and prosperity through a new partnership with industry, radical procurement reforms and backing UK businesses.
  • ‘NATO first’—stepping up on European security by leading in NATO, with strengthened nuclear, new tech and updated conventional capabilities.
  • UK innovation driven by lessons from Ukraine—harnessing drones, data and digital warfare to make our Armed Forces stronger and safer.
  • Whole-of-society approach—widening participation in national resilience, and renewing the Nation’s contract with those who serve.
Whole thing is available here. That's tonight's reading sorted!
 
Lots to digest, can't see any mention of Puma replacement but this will be the plane spotter headline:

P114.46

More F-35s will be required over the next decade.
This could comprise a mix of F-35A and B models according to military requirements to provide greater value for money.
 
Last edited:
Couple of interesting additional air titbits on P.114/115

Hawk T1 & T2 to be replaced with a cost effective jet trainer. (p115.48)
Further E-7's to be procured when funding allows. (p115.47)
Augmenting the A400M fleet with either more A400M's or exploring options for using civilian aircraft where military capability is not required. (p115.48)
Civilian flight refuelling in non contested environments. (p114.6)
Realisation that having all the UK's transport assets at one airfield might not be the best plan with greater use of civilian airfields in time of crisis. (p114.5)

Strategic Defence Review Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad 2025

Zeb
 
zebedee said:
Couple of interesting additional air titbits on P.114/115

Hawk T1 & T2 to be replaced with a cost effective jet trainer. (p115.48)
Further E-7's to be procured when funding allows. (p115.47)
Augmenting the A400M fleet with either more A400M's or exploring options for using civilian aircraft where military capability is not required. (p115.48)
Civilian flight refuelling in non contested environments. (p114.6)
Realisation that having all the UK's transport assets at one airfield might not be the best plan with greater use of civilian airfields in time of crisis. (p114.5)

Strategic Defence Review Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad 2025

Zeb
Click to expand...
There’s a similar naval reference at p107 & 106 to using commercial assets in non contested environments to supplement the RFA.

The naval aspect could look like anything from a contractor operated aviation training ship, which the RAN have adopted with MY Sycamore, or just increased use of commercial shipping to supplement the Point class RoRo fleet. It could also include increased use the existing practice of civilian tankers to take fuel closer to the fight, allowing the more well defended RFA assets to shuttle in and out of theatre.
 
Looks promising that we are not going to get back into providing a large ground force on the Continent so that we can focus on submarines and other weapons where we have capabilities that most of our allies do not.
Providing BAOR during the Cold War really cramped the RN and RAF.
 
Last edited:
The Torygraph is annoyed, so someone must be doing something right.
Grey Havoc said:
Somehow I don't think that this will be popular among said gap year students.
Click to expand...
Those who it doesn't appeal to won't do it. The proposal is to do something similar to the Australian Defence Forces existing scheme: six months training, six months in a role, and no enduring commitment. There's a similar proposal for 'Phase 0' training without initial commitment. Both are aimed at giving young people a chance to see if a military career (and if so, which military career) is right for them.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Barring a miracle, the Chinese have the islands now, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen analysis that the lease keeps control of the Chagos Archipelago in British hands, and precludes Mauritius from allowing any third party from establishing military facilities in the whole of the nation.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
The current government of Mauritius is also pro-Indian if anything.
Click to expand...
Not so much in recent times. Indeed, one of the arguments given by supporters in favour of this deal within the British Foreign Office and the U.S. State Department was that it would help India take back influence with the Republic of Mauritius from China. I rather suspect that was a forlorn hope at best.
 
It looks like there's a reasonably firm commitment to getting some F-35A for nuclear strike, and, nominally, with no reduction in Typhoon numbers or wavering from GCAP as a result.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

UK exploring idea of F-35A purchase for NATO strike role

We’ve corrected our article: UK F-35A purchase intention not confirmed, but being considered based on requriements. Gov’t edited response after error suggested a firm shift.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
A Defence Minister has confirmed for the first time that the Royal Air Force is expected to operate a mix of F-35B and F-35A fighter jets, suggesting a future acquisition of the A variant.

In response to a parliamentary question from Conservative MP Andrew Snowden, Minister of State for Defence Maria Eagle stated:

“The Strategic Defence Review does not recommend reductions in fast jets for the RAF, but it confirms the Government’s commitment to GCAP, to upgrade Typhoons and no reductions in number as there is a shift to a new mix of F35Bs and F35As. The Government is committed to upgrading Typhoons and driving exports of Typhoons abroad.”

While the UK has long focused exclusively on the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B variant for carrier operations, this marks the clearest indication yet of government intent to incorporate the conventional take-off and landing F-35A into its future fleet.
Click to expand...
 
LightningFan1959 said:
It looks like there's a reasonably firm commitment to getting some F-35A for nuclear strike, and, nominally, with no reduction in Typhoon numbers or wavering from GCAP as a result.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

UK exploring idea of F-35A purchase for NATO strike role

We’ve corrected our article: UK F-35A purchase intention not confirmed, but being considered based on requriements. Gov’t edited response after error suggested a firm shift.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk
Click to expand...
"F-35A acquisition has been interpreted by experts and parliamentarians as linked to the UK’s possible future role in NATO’s nuclear sharing mission" From linked article

Interpreted by the press: UK getting nuclear bombs again.

There was nothing in the SDR about new Nuclear weapons for the RAF.

Interpreted, Linked, Possible, so no actual proof.
 
LightningFan1959 said:
Not to mention the fact that we'd likely be waiting for them for about five years assuming we ordered them right away.
Click to expand...
Would be faster to just intigrate ASMP onto Typhoon and buy from the French.
It might actually be cheaper to pay through the nose for dual key B61.
 
Really need to know if Aldermaston can step up and provide.

If for example we're talking a 5 year wait for F-35A and B61, then what is the likely schedule for domestic alternative?
 
bob225 said:
There was nothing in the SDR about new Nuclear weapons for the RAF.
Click to expand...
The actual recommendation - Recommendation 30, point 3 - is "Commencing discussion with the United States and NATO on the potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced UK participation in NATO's nuclear mission."

That isn't a specific capability for a specific service. But there are actually very few specific capabilities for specific services identified in the white paper. It's very unlikely that's concerned with nuclear artillery, so it's either (a) an increased CASD force, (b) aircraft-carried theatre weapons, or (c) nuclear depth bombs.

From context, (a) is unlikely - it would have fallen elsewhere in the report - and (c) would be coming out of nowhere - AFAIK nobody is discussing the return of NDBs - so aircraft-carried nuclear weapons seem more likely. And in the NATO context, those would most sensibly be RAF-operated.

Meanwhile, Recommendation 46 Point 2 is "More F-35s will be required over the next decade. This could comprise a mix of F-35A and B models according to military requirements to provide greater value for money." That doesn't specifically call for F-35As for the nuclear mission. But it's likely that, if there were a nuclear mission for the RAF emerging from Point 30, F-35As with US weapons would be the quickest way to achieve it.
 
My reading is, the UK would gain access to the new B61 storage facilities that the US are building in the UK.
The RAF doesn't have any B61 certified aircraft and no way would the US clear their nukes on non-US aircraft so by default the RAF would either have to acquire its own F-35As or borrow some from the USAF.
 
Hood said:
so by default the RAF would either have to acquire its own F-35As or borrow some from the USAF.
Click to expand...
This is a good point.
As a genuine 'interim' solution, leased F-35A with B61. Both these components have precidents, so it's not that innovative.
This buys time for domestic solutions to be worked up.

"Commencing discussion with the United States and NATO on the potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced UK participation in NATO's nuclear mission."

This is rather more profound that some might grasp.

Arguably though....
Since we're committed to Astrea warhead production and Trident/Dreadnought, it's a fairly modest expense to expand to the limits of that architecture.
 
Yellow Palace said:
The actual recommendation - Recommendation 30, point 3 - is "Commencing discussion with the United States and NATO on the potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced UK participation in NATO's nuclear mission."

That isn't a specific capability for a specific service. But there are actually very few specific capabilities for specific services identified in the white paper. It's very unlikely that's concerned with nuclear artillery, so it's either (a) an increased CASD force, (b) aircraft-carried theatre weapons, or (c) nuclear depth bombs.

From context, (a) is unlikely - it would have fallen elsewhere in the report - and (c) would be coming out of nowhere - AFAIK nobody is discussing the return of NDBs - so aircraft-carried nuclear weapons seem more likely. And in the NATO context, those would most sensibly be RAF-operated.

Meanwhile, Recommendation 46 Point 2 is "More F-35s will be required over the next decade. This could comprise a mix of F-35A and B models according to military requirements to provide greater value for money." That doesn't specifically call for F-35As for the nuclear mission. But it's likely that, if there were a nuclear mission for the RAF emerging from Point 30, F-35As with US weapons would be the quickest way to achieve it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, did not see that.
 
Hood said:
My reading is, the UK would gain access to the new B61 storage facilities that the US are building in the UK.
The RAF doesn't have any B61 certified aircraft and no way would the US clear their nukes on non-US aircraft so by default the RAF would either have to acquire its own F-35As or borrow some from the USAF.
Click to expand...
RAF Lakenheath has had work done on the storage areas etc.

Although it's not confirmed or denied if such weapons have returned.

fas.org

The Potential Return of the US Nuclear Mission to RAF Lakenheath

Even without weapons present, the addition of a large nuclear air base in northern Europe is a significant new development that would have been inconceivable just a decade-and-a-half ago.
fas.org fas.org

www.bbc.co.uk

Ministers urged to clarify nuclear deployment at Lakenheath

CND is demanding to know whether the latest US nuclear munitions have been brought to Suffolk.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

How do we borrow them? Do we rent a HAS at Lakenheath and pop an aircraft in there on alert? No idea what they do with the NATO stuff in Europe, any ideas?
 
Look back at when the UK had the Canberra bomber on nuclear alert back in the 1950s equiped with US nuclear bombs before the V-force entered service, I would think a similar scenario would would work okay with UK F-35As and B-61-13s on alert.
 
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Review team plays down UK air-launched nuclear weapons

Senior authors of the Strategic Defence Review have downplayed the idea of Britain acquiring air-launched tactical nuclear weapons, despite growing speculation that the UK is considering purchasing F-35A aircraft to enable such a capability.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Looks like the proposed F-35A procurement is still very nebulous.
 
Reuben James said:
ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Review team plays down UK air-launched nuclear weapons

Senior authors of the Strategic Defence Review have downplayed the idea of Britain acquiring air-launched tactical nuclear weapons, despite growing speculation that the UK is considering purchasing F-35A aircraft to enable such a capability.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Looks like the proposed F-35A procurement is still very nebulous.
Click to expand...
I'll just add that, as useful as the UKDJ is, I don't half wish they'd slow down a little. They've had to backtrack considerably on this topic. Their headlines are also just bordering on click-bait.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom