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

TomS said:
How is it this complicated?
Click to expand...
Money and where to get it...
The Telegraph is saying the options may include some extra borrowing, but not exclusively that due to financial constraints, with cuts to come as well to fund it.
 
TomS said:
How is it this complicated?
Click to expand...
There's clearly some kind of Cabinet power struggle going on, with MoD wanting their funding black hole covered, and the Treasury/Rachel Reeves being unwilling to fund it. Someone should have banged heads together a year ago and told them to fund it as a national priority, but that hasn't happened.
 
TorpedoJ said:
https://singular-faloodeh-dea45f.netlify.app/
This has been doing the rounds on Twitter, a DIP simulator tool. Pick how much of the budget you want to allocate to each funding line, how fast you want spending to ramp up, and the strategy you present to the public.
Click to expand...
The sarcastic humour in that simulator is the cherry on top.

I had a little mess around, and to be fair to the government, getting it to just a £28b shortfall whilst managing every capability is difficult.

1780137358483.png
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot (220).png
    Screenshot (220).png
    217.6 KB · Views: 13
Last edited:
Reuben James said:
The sarcastic humour in that simulator is the cherry on top.

I had a little mess around, and to be fair to the government, getting it to just a £28b shortfall whilst managing every capability is difficult.
Click to expand...
I managed 85/100 on 3.5% with this:
1780137116741.png
I don't dare try 2.6%, I think the best way there would just be to screw the army over but even then it doesn't save much money.
 
Yeah, I edited mine to add the above. Basically went with DIP-level funding, and then froze force levels on everything else in order to fund the 12 new SSNs (and AUKUS/GCAP).

I also screwed the army (in my head I was just cutting the pocket-size tank force).

Turns out nuclear submarines are really damn expensive.

I don't dare try 2.6%, I think the best way there would just be to screw the army over but even then it doesn't save much money.
Click to expand...
I had a go, but there's literally no way of getting everything that most people expect without an increase in funding.
 
Last edited:
Government expenditure is a highly political topic.

UK government is spending enormous amounts of taxpayers money and incurring debts to (not)sustain everything.
That is a consequence of systems and underlying assumptions.

The short version is, the system as it is, is unsustainable.

But to go further is to tread deeply into politics.
 
Honestly, these constant leaks are doing more harm than good at this point. In the space of about two weeks, they've started to appear almost daily.

Outlets have discovered that in this uncertain period, they can essentially post whatever they want, so long as it's prefixed by 'Rumours say:'.

Now, the Telegraph has just published a story claiming that funding for Tempest will only arrive in the 2030s. With not even the vaguest waft of a source attached.

I've contributed my fair share to the sharing of the leaks and 'stories', but I think the end result will be that the DIP arrives having been judged by impossible standards. Something is going to get cut, and whatever it is, people are going to whine about it in the MSM.
 
Reuben James said:
Honestly, these constant leaks are doing more harm than good at this point. In the space of about two weeks, they've started to appear almost daily.

Outlets have discovered that in this uncertain period, they can essentially post whatever they want, so long as it's prefixed by 'Rumours say:'.

Now, the Telegraph has just published a story claiming that funding for Tempest will only arrive in the 2030s. With not even the vaguest waft of a source attached.

I've contributed my fair share to the sharing of the leaks and 'stories', but I think the end result will be that the DIP arrives having been judged by impossible standards. Something is going to get cut, and whatever it is, people are going to whine about it in the MSM.
Click to expand...
I agree. We know that without a drastic increase in spending the government has a choice between committing entirely to Hybrid/20-40-40/CCAs and trying to increase numbers of manned platforms. They can't do both and yet there are repeated leaks saying that T83 has been pushed back or the £18Bn won't all be spent on drones or whatnot. Sorry MoD folk, one of them is going to have to be true.
 
TBF, it was the Telegraph that said it'd be the 1st of June as well. I'm sure if the June 11th date is incorrect, then they'll publish something else claiming June 22nd, or something.
 
Reuben James said:
TBF, it was the Telegraph that said it'd be the 1st of June as well. I'm sure if the June 11th date is incorrect, then they'll publish something else claiming June 22nd, or something.
Click to expand...
Probably, but the week after Healy has a NATO summit meeting, so politics would be handy for him to have it actually out by then. This time the Telegraph is saying "industry" is briefing that they are fairly sure.
 
Reuben James said:
TBF, it was the Telegraph that said it'd be the 1st of June as well. I'm sure if the June 11th date is incorrect, then they'll publish something else claiming June 22nd, or something.
Click to expand...
Surely it would be the 21st in that case?
Starmer's birthday present for me might be the DIP!
 
It'd be like your partner hinting at getting you a Mercedes all year, and then on the day they arrive with a Corsa they found at the local dealership, and then claims they've made a transformative investment in your transportation capability.
 
sparky42 said:
Probably, but the week after Healy has a NATO summit meeting, so politics would be handy for him to have it actually out by then. This time the Telegraph is saying "industry" is briefing that they are fairly sure.
Click to expand...
Politically, it will be exceptionally difficult for Healy to go to Ankara without DIP agreed.

The one caveat being that Ankara also provides an angle of 'we wanted to only spend £X billion, but the NATO summit made it obvious that we needed to spend £Y billion to deal with the threat'. But even that angle at least needs a credible offer on the table.

More cynically, of course, that sentence could end '...the NATO summit made it obvious that we needed to reprioritise, so there'll be another year's delay while we do more studies.'
 
Yellow Palace said:
More cynically, of course, that sentence could end '...the NATO summit made it obvious that we needed to reprioritise, so there'll be another year's delay while we do more studies.'
Click to expand...
Which then leads to pretty massive pressure from the GCAP partners over UK not paying for their share as agreed (because the UK doesn't have a signed DIP).

And I suspect that there are some enforcement terms in the agreement, after the experience with Typhoon.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Which then leads to pretty massive pressure from the GCAP partners over UK not paying for their share as agreed (because the UK doesn't have a signed DIP).

And I suspect that there are some enforcement terms in the agreement, after the experience with Typhoon.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which, the FT is reporting that as part of the horse trading, Treasury is apparently trying ot take over management of the UK's side of GCAP claiming that the MOD has proven incapable of managing such complex projects.
As part of the deal to inject fresh funding, the Treasury is proposing to take control of the spending on the programme, people close to the situation said.The department is poised to justify the move in part by pointing to the complexity of the programme and its structure involving international partners, and in part by pointing to the MoD’s dismal record of cost overruns on big military projects.One Whitehall figure said the MoD is viewed as having a “delinquent” attitude towards taxpayer cash and achieving value for money.Reeves fears GCAP is “just the next HS2”, another government figure said, referring to the high-speed railway that has been hit by soaring costs, extensive delays and a shrinking scope. The person claimed there was “fundamental disagreement” about the fighter jet programme between the prime minister and Reeves, although a person close to the chancellor denied the characterisation.The Treasury’s push for control would involve it having greater oversight, although some government figures said the programme’s international structure and the status of external contracts will make spending hard to rein in.The arrangement is not finalised as negotiations over the DIP continue.Officials said there was a push to announce the DIP as soon as next week, with June 11 mooted as a target date.If the extra defence expenditure is confirmed as roughly £15bn, it will entail significant cuts to planned military programmes, which are facing a funding gap of £28bn over the next four years.The government’s internal projections for the cost of GCAP have spiralled and some British officials believe delivery is likely to slip beyond the date pinpointed when the three countries announced plans to develop a joint stealth fighter in December 2022.Under the plans, London, Tokyo and Rome have pledged to have a fighter in service by 2035. Industry executives insist it is on track to meet the deadline.One option, according to two industry figures, could involve designating GCAP as one of the government’s “mega projects”, those deemed to be critical to delivering on the UK’s strategic priorities.HS2 and Dreadnought, the successor to the Trident nuclear programme, are among the mega projects and are overseen by a cross-government governance board that tracks major milestones.It would also involve enhanced support from the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, an agency that sits within the Treasury and Cabinet Office, under this option, according to a government figure.
Click to expand...
Another reason to assume that the announcement is "soon" is that the Japanese PM is visiting at the end of June so the funding question has to be sorted by then.
 
With a track record of messes like Ajax, you're almost tempted to support the removal of authority from purely the MoD level...until you look at the two programmes the article gives as examples, Dreadnought and HS2, and suddenly that looks like a disaster waiting to happen.

It would put GCAP in that club of programmes that are 'too big to fail', and as a result are never cancelled, just delayed, and delayed.
 
Oh look.
The opportunity to have another layer of committees, administration and management.
So much money to extract for zero achievement.

All to provide 'efficiency' and 'saving money.

Because managerial 'efficiency' and 'saving money' is guaranteed to produce a successful warfighting machine.......

HS2 is a con and a disaster and entirely the product of increasing incompetence amongst the Managerial Elite.

So letting them loose on GCAP, which has otherwise been a surprisingly tight and well driven effort by RAF and industry. Couldn't possibly go wrong.......
 
The Treasury only took over from the DfT on HS2 funding last year.

As mentioned above the FT says announcement likely 11th June with a £15bn increase in funding over the next four years above the existing increase in the Spring budget, a compromise between the £12bn extra the Chancellor was willing to release and the £18bn extra the Defence Secretary was asking for. There would be a fresh £6bn budgetary allocation to GCAP which would be designated a critical infrastructure project with that joining HS2 and Dreadnought as being overseen jointly by the Treasury.
 
Request For Information: Future Integrated Air and Missile Defence Silos
https://contracts.mod.uk/esop/toolkit/opportunity/current/61106/detail.si
https://contracts.mod.uk/esop/toolkit/DownloadProxy/41726400?verify=15&oid=58352336&fileId=24704990

The MoD has put out an RFI for missile launchers optimised for deployment on USVs and other lightly crewed platforms, saying that existing systems "carry substantial platform design and integration work and require high levels of maintenance and operator interaction". They want a system that can remain in a 'prepared for firing' state for 30 days without any operator interaction and which has the flexibility to be easily integrated and fitted to vessels or be adapted for vehicle or land uses.

Interestingly the named missiles are the CAMM and ASTER families so this isn't a small launcher; Aster is nearly the same diameter as mk41 and the RFI also mentions future IAMD missiles which are likely to be even bigger. This could turn into a UK mk41 alternative.

If this idea has been a while coming we may have already seen BAE's response in the strange 4-cell, one lid silos seen on their SEP T91 concept:
1780766283501.png
 
A silo system needs to fit those tougher criteria to justify funding. Otherwise it's subject to the question "why reinvent the wheel".

But a solid 'business case' could be made in partnership with industry for such.
Since the 'wheel' here offers reduced maintenance, integration costs and remains available for immediate operation.

Which frees the UK and domestic industry from reliance on foreign systems.

But crucially the why question remains and the only logical answer is current foreign systems come with higher 'cost' than mere finance. Likely integration of weapons costs and availability of supply, plus 'hidden' political costs.....and delays.

Frankly if this is real, it's a major criticism of Mk41 and Sylver .....
 
Scott Kenny said:
Yep.

An inability to just sit in a ready state for a month is not good for 2XL-USVs intended to be offboard missile magazines.
Click to expand...
It's not great for crewed ships either and speaks of current systems being designed decades ago.

If concepts of lean manning want to be realised, then such lomg periods between maintenance checks has to be.
 
zen said:
A silo system needs to fit those tougher criteria to justify funding. Otherwise it's subject to the question "why reinvent the wheel".

But a solid 'business case' could be made in partnership with industry for such.
Since the 'wheel' here offers reduced maintenance, integration costs and remains available for immediate operation.

Which frees the UK and domestic industry from reliance on foreign systems.

But crucially the why question remains and the only logical answer is current foreign systems come with higher 'cost' than mere finance. Likely integration of weapons costs and availability of supply, plus 'hidden' political costs.....and delays.

Frankly if this is real, it's a major criticism of Mk41 and Sylver .....
Click to expand...
I think it wouldn't be too difficult for the Navy to go to whoever controls the taps and say that since they need a new VLS for the new unmanned ships anyway it wouldn't cost too much to replace Mk41 entirely and so free us from American whims over integration etc. Given the wider emphasis on lean crewing it might be good operational sense for T83, too, to have near-zero-maintenance VLS silos.

I like BAE's quad cell silo if that is indeed what they are, the squareness could allow backwards compatibility with mk41 canisters (STRATUS is square so we can't leave that behind) while it leaves the door open for a potential much larger cell for hypersonic missiles and Nightfall derivatives. CAMM would be a quad pack in a quad pack, as it were.
 
A hexadecimal division?
 
Interesting, good catch. Perhaps as you mention we could see this transition into a family of indigenous launch systems.

Mk41 for T83 is expected, but not yet confirmed...?
 
Full circle back to the advantage of the Mushroom Farms with simple rubber seals over cells with mechanical covers that need to be maintained every two weeks or so.
 
WatcherZero said:
Full circle back to the advantage of the Mushroom Farms with simple rubber seals over cells with mechanical covers that need to be maintained every two weeks or so.
Click to expand...
Even the mushroom farms need their caps taken off before firing, if towed sonar can be deployed from an unmanned vessel I think we can make mechanical lids that don't require much maintenance. We would sacrifice the reaction time of Sylver, though.
 
sparky42 said:
Latest from the Times this time is that No.10 is still talking over the weekend to decide funding, with reports that the other departments will face a 1% cut to Capital spending to fund the Defence spending.
https://archive.ph/keBHR
Click to expand...
I think Greg Bagwell said on Twitter that it ought to be thought of an insurance policy for those departments. Pay 1% more, avoid paying significantly more in the long run.
 
Telegraph has a new angle, that the 35A's might be cancelled or delayed as part of the back and forth that is still going on, even though they think the DIP is to be released on Thursday.
 
F-35A is insufficient in numbers currently planned for anything but a inadequate force for inadequate delivery of duel key American nuclear weapons.
Not enough to be serious.
Not enough for any military effectiveness.

But enough to impose extra costs beyond the F-35B fleet.
They won't operate from the carriers and they won't be carrying anything but American weapons we'd have to buy.

So one might cynically assume the RAF chose to swap a limited number of F-35B for an even more limited number of F-35A. Knowing they could offer it up as sacrifice to keep other programs going.

One suspect that the Army may yet have to give up on Ajax without replacement.

And the Navy's grand plans for a monster Type 83 and over specificationed LUSVs may also be offered up to the god of 'savings'.

Stratus pair might yet get pushed back....it's a saving now. Especially as SCALP/Storm Shadow production is restarted.

I'd also expect the Army's glorified Landrover replacement from Germany may yet feel scrutiny too.
 
zen said:
F-35A is insufficient in numbers currently planned for anything but a inadequate force for inadequate delivery of duel key American nuclear weapons.
Not enough to be serious.
Not enough for any military effectiveness.

But enough to impose extra costs beyond the F-35B fleet.
They won't operate from the carriers and they won't be carrying anything but American weapons we'd have to buy.

So one might cynically assume the RAF chose to swap a limited number of F-35B for an even more limited number of F-35A. Knowing they could offer it up as sacrifice to keep other programs going.

One suspect that the Army may yet have to give up on Ajax without replacement.

And the Navy's grand plans for a monster Type 83 and over specificationed LUSVs may also be offered up to the god of 'savings'.

Stratus pair might yet get pushed back....it's a saving now. Especially as SCALP/Storm Shadow production is restarted.

I'd also expect the Army's glorified Landrover replacement from Germany may yet feel scrutiny too.
Click to expand...
I just figured the RAF wanted the A's in order to screw the RN over lack of B's for the Carriers.
 
zen said:
Stratus pair might yet get pushed back....it's a saving now. Especially as SCALP/Storm Shadow production is restarted.
Click to expand...
Isn't the current thinking that it'll be just Stratus LO for the UK, and just Stratus RS for the French? There seems to have been some fracture since the days of 'both nations will buy both missiles'.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom