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

zen said:
Well strictly it wouldn’t matter if they had enough diesel generation capacity....
Click to expand...
They were designed not to need lots of diesel generating capacity; the entire point of IEP with WR21s was that the gas turbines would carry essentially the entire load. It wouldn't have been reasonable to assume that the WR21 might be hopelessly unreliable.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're probably not going to have a carrier in there for a long time, 3 weeks to a month for a standard transit IIRC.
Click to expand...
If you prolong the transit to provide presence, you do. Needs some finesse of the deployment schedules, but they made it work acceptably.
 
WR.21 isn't the problem.
Intercooler and a lack of diesel power provision was.

The GT is just another RR Trent derivative as is the slightly later MT30.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_WR-21
In 2009 it was discovered that the Northrop Grumman intercooler as fitted in the WR-21, on Type 45 destroyers, had a major design flaw,[6] failing to operate in water temperatures beyond 30 °C. The intercooler of the first Type 45 destroyer, HMS Daring, failed in the mid-Atlantic in 2010 and had to be repaired in Canada, with further repairs for intercooler failure in 2012 in Bahrain. The Type 45's pioneering integrated electric propulsion (IEP) system uses two WR-21s and two Wartsila 2-MW diesel generators to power everything on board, including weapons systems in addition to propulsion and other functions, leaving the ships vulnerable to "total electric failure". The Ministry of Defence said:
Click to expand...
 
zen said:
WR.21 isn't the problem.
Intercooler and a lack of diesel power provision was.

The GT is just another RR Trent derivative as is the slightly later MT30.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_WR-21
Click to expand...
Considering the intercooler is part of the engine, in the same way as a the fan is part of a turbofan or the recuperator is part of the AGT1500, the WR.21 was the problem. Its turbomachinery may have been fine, but the engine wasn't.

I don't know why an intercooler was specified as part of the design; generally, these do not increase cycle efficiency in open-cycle gas turbines. While they do reduce the work of compression, they also require an increase in fuel flow to maintain the combustor outlet temperature. I'd have to sit with a good (which means I can't afford to buy) engine analysis program to see the intercooler's benefit, and even then I'd need accurate performance maps for the turbomachinery and the intercooler, combustor, and recuperator.
 
1635yankee said:
I don't know why an intercooler was specified as part of the design; generally, these do not increase cycle efficiency in open-cycle gas turbines. While they do reduce the work of compression, they also require an increase in fuel flow to maintain the combustor outlet temperature.
Click to expand...
AFAIK it was all part of an integrated design - the Intercooled Recuperated Gas Turbine - intended to give similar fuel consumption characteristics to a diesel engine, including the relatively flat throttle response.

The ICR engine was a joint US/UK project, and was considered for the 1989 version of the ARLEIGH BURKE Flight III - along with IEP. Which might have been a bullet dodged, but equally the prospect of putting them on more (and American, which shouldn't matter, but....) ships might have concentrated minds on getting the intercooler to work properly.
 
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-...eir-starmer-promising-hope-but-little-change/

Two people close to the internal government conversation on defense spending — one an industry figure and one an MP — said they expected Starmer to “overrule” Chancellor Rachel Reeves and announce more money for the Ministry of Defence in the coming weeks, offering a larger uplift than the recently reported range of £12 billion to £18 billion. There will be pressure to announce before the NATO summit in Turkey in July.

Yet the same people said they expected the new money would fall short of a £28 billion gap identified by the MOD, and that there was little clarity over whether it would be accompanied by publication of the long-awaited Defence Investment Plan.
Click to expand...
 
So increasingly likely that Starmer's time is up as leader, which means a competition in Labour, and then a new cabinet for the new PM, which means a chance that any major spending decisions are going to be pushed even further back.
 
sparky42 said:
So increasingly likely that Starmer's time is up as leader, which means a competition in Labour, and then a new cabinet for the new PM, which means a chance that any major spending decisions are going to be pushed even further back.
Click to expand...
Is there anything in the GCAP/GIGO agreement that allows for penalizing a country that can't commit funds as planned out in the agreement, thereby causing the other countries to have to pay more to continue development?
 
sparky42 said:
So increasingly likely that Starmer's time is up as leader, which means a competition in Labour, and then a new cabinet for the new PM, which means a chance that any major spending decisions are going to be pushed even further back.
Click to expand...
Hmm. If he is to leave, ideally he does so in September, and agrees with his successor to retain defence policy, as the Tories did during their many leadership swaps.

By most accounts the DIP is pretty close to finished.
 
I wonder if you could mount one of those radars on those Kraken USVs? Or would that leave it too close to the water? Might be weight and power issues too.

Edit - I did a quick search, and it looks like the Giraffe 1X weighs 150kg, whilst the Scout K3 can carry a payload of 600kg. Not sure where you'd mount it though.

I also saw someone mentioning over on UKDJ that part of the order was for K5s, which are significantly larger. Mentions of a navalised Brimstone were also made. Does anyone have any further information/sources?

https://www.krakentechnology.com/k3scout

Kraken's website is very useful for understanding the size of these USVs.
 
Last edited:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...d-artillery-systems-to-transform-british-army
- Procurement of 72 Remote Controlled Howitzers (RCH 155) for the British Army will deliver a step change in artillery capability.

- The UK’s £1 billion investment delivers on the UK-Germany Trinity House Agreement, and supports at least 500 British jobs, including at Rheinmetall’s Telford facility and KNDS Stockport.

- Rheinmetall set to use British steel through Sheffield Forgemasters, strengthening the UK’s defence industrial base and supporting the UK Steel Strategy.
Click to expand...
 
Reuben James said:
I wonder if you could mount one of those radars on those Kraken USVs? Or would that leave it too close to the water? Might be weight and power issues too.
Click to expand...

You'd need to have a very good datalink as well Not sure how well 1X is stabilised (electronically) it can work on the move but there will be limits.
 
Reuben James said:
I wonder if you could mount one of those radars on those Kraken USVs? Or would that leave it too close to the water? Might be weight and power issues too.

Edit - I did a quick search, and it looks like the Giraffe 1X weighs 150kg, whilst the Scout K3 can carry a payload of 600kg. Not sure where you'd mount it though.
Click to expand...
I was wondering whether that isn't the outcome of the HORUS RFI; using fast, small boats with Giraffe 1X to provide more survivable and persistent early warning against drone attacks than Crowsnest would be able to manage.
Reuben James said:
I also saw someone mentioning over on UKDJ that part of the order was for K5s, which are significantly larger. Mentions of a navalised Brimstone were also made. Does anyone have any further information/sources?

https://www.krakentechnology.com/k3scout

Kraken's website is very useful for understanding the size of these USVs.
Click to expand...
Lovely as Brimstone and K5s would be, I'm not sure I trust Magenta on that. Project Wolfram as a Navy project for Sea Spear? They also made references into articles that I couldn't find the quote from, and the K3/K5 mix, while possible, isn't referenced anywhere.
I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I have suspicions that Magenta is using AI to either research comments or even write them.
 
Yeah, Kraken does mention 'radar' (and 'sonar') as two potential additions to the base K3, but does not elaborate any further. The Horus RFI wanted fairly rapid delivery to be explored as well, so they might have secured something for these deployed USVs.
 
zen said:
And slowly Spear III dies.
Not with a bang, but incrementally put off funding integration again and again and again.
Death by deferral.
Click to expand...
I must admit, the comparison between the two weapons strikes me as odd.

Stormbreaker seems able to do 80% of what Spear-3 claims to be able to do, and is available now, and cheaper.
 
Reuben James said:
I must admit, the comparison between the two weapons strikes me as odd.

Stormbreaker seems able to do 80% of what Spear-3 claims to be able to do, and is available now, and cheaper.
Click to expand...
Spear 3 massively outranges Stormbreaker though, and Spear EW doesn't have an equivalent, and SDBII doesn't have the same networking abilities, and doesn't have the ability to loiter in the same way.
Besides, probably better not to rely on the US long term.
 
TorpedoJ said:
Spear 3 massively outranges Stormbreaker though, and Spear EW doesn't have an equivalent, and SDBII doesn't have the same networking abilities, and doesn't have the ability to loiter in the same way.
Besides, probably better not to rely on the US long term.
Click to expand...
I should clarify, I don't mean we should replace Spear-3, moreso that this interim order should've been placed a lot sooner, to get 80% of the way there, before Spear-3 finally arrives.
 
zen said:
And slowly Spear III dies.
Not with a bang, but incrementally put off funding integration again and again and again.
Death by deferral.
Click to expand...
Funding isn't the issue though as per the public reports into this (and the lots of money spent). It's lack of suitably experienced people. It looks like it will take MBDA more than 20 years to deliver this. It finished the concept phase in 2010!
 
red admiral said:
Funding isn't the issue though as per the public reports into this (and the lots of money spent). It's lack of suitably experienced people. It looks like it will take MBDA more than 20 years to deliver this. It finished the concept phase in 2010!
Click to expand...
The question is, could we have got it before then on Typhoon? It still has use there as a standoff weapon.
 
Reuben James said:
I must admit, the comparison between the two weapons strikes me as odd.

Stormbreaker seems able to do 80% of what Spear-3 claims to be able to do, and is available now, and cheaper.
Click to expand...
And made in the USA
 
TorpedoJ said:
The question is, could we have got it before then on Typhoon? It still has use there as a standoff weapon.
Click to expand...
I don't think so as the same constraints still apply. There's been a few tests on Typhoon but this isn't the same as a finished product. e.g. there was a fit check of something that looks like a SPEAR all the way back in 2015 but this doesn't mean it was a working weapon.

It would definitely be of use on Typhoon. So would lots of other things. But there is finite people, facilities, money etc. so a need to prioritise.
 
Reuben James said:
Stormbreaker seems able to do 80% of what Spear-3 claims to be able to do, and is available now, and cheaper.
Click to expand...

We've no idea on SPEAR cost per unit, it won't be cheaper than SDB2 though...but it will have close to double the range on stationary targets and close to 3 times the range on moving targets (which is the whole point). SpearGlide should also provide a far cheaper than SDB2 munition for stationary targets (it might even do moving), with a similar size warhead.

I think buying SDB2 is utterly daft (as well as spending more than a second even thinking about Raytheon's Red Kite proposal). The timelines for delivery and then getting it into operational service, let alone how many aircraft we have that will actually be able to use the munition without significant upgrade in any reasonable timeframe make it beyond stupid....but this is the MoD....

Been saying it for an age but the only weapons buy we need to be making in the short term for F-35B is SDB1 and JDAM 1,000lbers...both work right now on all of our aircraft (SDB2 won't), both are cheap with quick delivery, neither tread on the toes of UK GW industry....

The only other things that make vague sense are some gun pods (before they leave production), APKWS (which I think may turn up in the near future), small buy of JSM in the early 2030's.....and if it integrates easily some JDAM-LR for external carriage to provide some more standoff (again limited numbers).
 
red admiral said:
There's been a few tests on Typhoon but this isn't the same as a finished product. e.g. there was a fit check of something that looks like a SPEAR all the way back in 2015 but this doesn't mean it was a working weapon.
Click to expand...

There was a full guided trial from Typhoon in November 2024. It included a direct hit on a T-72 range target (stationary).

View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6eL8LMtt8jA
 
So no idea as to when the SPEAR 3 missile will enter service timmymagic? It will be a game changer for the RAF when it eventually does.
 
red admiral said:
Funding isn't the issue though as per the public reports into this (and the lots of money spent). It's lack of suitably experienced people. It looks like it will take MBDA more than 20 years to deliver this. It finished the concept phase in 2010!
Click to expand...
MBDA?
Whats publicly available points to everybody and everything but MBDA or a "lack of suitably experienced people". The ongoing delays seemed to have everything to do with the F-35 TR3 delays and the lack of money (and/or interest...) of the UK MOD to integrate it with Typhoon.
I suspect that if the UK MOD had signed a production and integration contract (for Typhoon...) a few years ago Spear III would have been in front line service by now...

https://www.airforce-technology.com...-timeline-as-in-service-now-by-2030s/?cf-view

At the time, the UK government admitted delays in the programme had resulted from challenges stemming from interdependencies with international partners, which required “significant adjustments to maintain progress”.
It was posited at the time by Airforce Technology this may refer to the Block 4 modernisation of the F-35, which has also experienced delays.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sintra said:
Whats publicly available points to everybody and everything but MBDA or a "lack of suitably experienced people".
Click to expand...
Or you could read the IPA report rather than random unsourced news articles?
timmymagic said:
There was a full guided trial from Typhoon in November 2024.
Click to expand...
Quite. But one test in one mode doesn't a finished weapon system make.

Maybe it's almost finished now? It's hardly been the most transparent programme.
 
red admiral said:
Or you could read the IPA report rather than random unsourced news articles?

Quite. But one test in one mode doesn't a finished weapon system make.

Maybe it's almost finished now? It's hardly been the most transparent programme.
Click to expand...

I´ve been reading every single "Annual Report on Major Projects" IPA (today´s "NISPA") report for a couple of decades and i really dont remember anything about MBDA screwing this particular program or something about a "lack of suitably experienced people" (wich in itself is an interesting take, what did MBDA and RAF did with the chaps that worked/work on Brimstone 1/2/3?), but i can remember that the integration of Meteor and Spear III on the F-35 was (thats public information) dependent on TR-3/Block 4 and there´s no contract for integrating the thing on Typhoon. We can hardly blame MBDA for Meteor and Spear III (F-35) integration going to the "early thirties" if that is entirely dependent on LM and LM software that is horrendously late.

And please can you help me and indicate of what year is the IPA report that you are mentioning?

Because the last one (january 2025) said just this:

This programme aims to achieve delivery and integration of Spear Cap 3; which will deliver the principal air-to-ground weapon for UK F-35 and is critical to the aircraft’s Attack and Control of the Air capabilities in contested environments.
Click to expand...


Update - I found the report that you are mentioning.
It was the not an annual report but on one about the "UK F-35 capability".

2.14 The MoD intends to use bespoke UK developed air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons on the F-35.9 These are the Spear 3 air-to-surface missile and the Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile.10 Spear 3 is a new missile currently being developed by a separate major programme independent of the F-35 programme, while Meteor is already in service awaiting integration onto the F-35. The UK is dependent on the Joint Program Office (JPO) providing laboratories and aircraft to test missile integration, but the integration of new weapons is delayed as part of the wider Block 4 upgrade delays.
2.15 The MoD is far behind its planned delivery dates for integrating Spear 3 and Meteor onto the F-35. The MoD originally set its need by date for both missiles as December 2024. However, it now expects to have them in full service no earlier than the early 2030s, although the MoD is attempting to bring forward delivery of a limited Spear 3 capability. Spear 3 has been delayed by poor supplier performance partly resulting from a lack of suitably qualified and experienced people. The commercial arrangements between the MoD and the supplier also fail to prioritise delivery. The Spear 3 programme is also waiting on delivery of a key component from the US. Meteor has been delayed by the lack of opportunities provided by the JPO for integration
Click to expand...

So, we have a lack of "performance" by MBDA, delay´s caused by TR3/Block 4 and the JPO.
Murphys´s law...
 
Last edited:
red admiral said:
That is your interpretation
Click to expand...

Yes, and its the correct one... From the exact same report:

1.12 The JPO has delayed the full delivery schedule of Block 4 upgrades, designed to modernise the aircraft and address new threats. These are designed to improve various aspects of aircraft performance including software, electronics and weapons integration. In 2013 the MoD expected that this would be fully delivered by 2022. But in 2023 the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that it would not be delivered until 2029. The JPO now expects that Block 4 will be completely delivered by 2033. It has had problems developing the required technology and the requirement requested by the global programme partners to deliver an increasing number of Block 4 capabilities
Click to expand...

2.14 The MoD intends to use bespoke UK developed air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons on the F-35.9 These are the Spear 3 air-to-surface missile and the Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile.10 Spear 3 is a new missile currently being developed by a separate major programme independent of the F-35 programme, while Meteor is already in service awaiting integration onto the F-35. The UK is dependent on the Joint Program Office (JPO) providing laboratories and aircraft to test missile integration, but the integration of new weapons is delayed as part of the wider Block 4 upgrade delays.
Click to expand...
 
"
2.14 The MoD intends to use bespoke UK developed air-to-surface and air-to-air weapons on the F-35.9 These are the Spear 3 air-to-surface missile and the Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile.10 Spear 3 is a new missile currently being developed by a separate major programme independent of the F-35 programme, while Meteor is already in service awaiting integration onto the F-35. The UK is dependent on the Joint Program Office (JPO) providing laboratories and aircraft to test missile integration, but the integration of new weapons is delayed as part of the wider Block 4 upgrade delays.
2.15 The MoD is far behind its planned delivery dates for integrating Spear 3 and Meteor onto the F-35. The MoD originally set its need by date for both missiles as December 2024. However, it now expects to have them in full service no earlier than the early 2030s, although the MoD is attempting to bring forward delivery of a limited Spear 3 capability. Spear 3 has been delayed by poor supplier performance partly resulting from a lack of suitably qualified and experienced people. The commercial arrangements between the MoD and the supplier also fail to prioritise delivery. The Spear 3 programme is also waiting on delivery of a key component from the US. Meteor has been delayed by the lack of opportunities provided by the JPO for integration
"
Translated: "We told MBDA we wanted it by 2024, but the F-35 JPO screwed the pooch over TR3/4 and we won't be able to integrate it until they work out how to find their ass with both hands and a flashlight. So in the meantime we're going to blame MBDA for not keeping engineers sitting idle on a project that was only funded to last until 2024."

Keeping a design team active for the better part of a decade extra due to someone else's screwup is a distinctly non-zero cost.
 
Looks like the money is finally on its way.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b5...1?shareToken=26f8de3b8bfacef2d603cb28c5ac7ff6

Burnham is also pro-increased defence spending, though he'd fund it through increased borrowing. Hopefully, he loses this upcoming by-election and Starmer can stick with this plan going forward.

In other news, this farce finally came to an end.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/aeralis-collapses-amid-uk-defence-investment-plan-delays/

They were never a serious candidate. Ideally, the M-346 for commonality with Italy on a future, GCAP-orientated trainer.
 
Starmer promises to poison the chalice further for the one drinks it in his place.....But borrowing is a dangerous game here.

Powell has too many Chinese connections, so beware this snake and everything he says.

Never believed this modular trainer nonsense. If it isn't BAE Systems, then it was always doomed.
 
For their navy, they need to in vest in small combatants. Ships that top out around 5k tons at full load that would be no more than $1.4b per hull.
So the type31 is looking like a good option. They need like 12 of those.
However they need other smaller more affordable ships. Topping out at around 4k tons these should ideally be as cheap as humanly possible while still having real self defense capabilities and limited broader AAW capability, but they should either be primarily focused on ASW, or offensive surface combat.

Then, after that upgrade the batch 2 rivers. Replace the batch 1s with a new batch 3 that’s some where between a cyclone and an LCS in total capability. ASMs and 40mk4 and some some sort of CIWS like RAM/goalkeeper/phalanx/etc.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom