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

So the F-35A for the nuclear role is getting the go ahead WatcherZero, I take it that there is no change from the 12 aircraft that were going to be ordered.
 
Yeah thats going ahead.

Nothing on Aerial tankers unsurprisingly, but also nothing on the mooted expansion of aerial lift.
 
Surprised about that with the Aerial Tankers for the F-35As though, I suppose that will come later when the need arises or we could always ask NATO for tanker support.
 
Lots to get through what I've currently noted.

Haven't seen a number of Common Combat Vessel yet.
Type 94 radar platform is in, though I'm suspecting we'll yet see the CCV and Type 94 merge when the costs hit home.

£790m to enhance protection of the UK homeland and overseas bases. This will buy new radars and sensors.
Considering the ABM radar effort is delayed to 2028, this is likely the big ticket in that figure.

Establish a nuclear fuels programme. Big one right here. £1.7bn allocated.

£11.1bn on munitions and weapons to increase UK stockpiles, including Deep Precision Strike, low-cost cruise missiles and one-way effectors.

Build a new Integrated Air, Space and Missile Defence Operations Centre.

£330m new investment into critical underwater infrastructure protection.
Such a small sum for something so vital.

Build a new laboratory in Porton Down – to be named after Ernest Bevin.
Likely he'll be turning in his grave over this one. As he'd have preferred something to do with the nuclear deterrent.
 
Last edited:
zen said:
Lots to get through what I've currently noted.

Haven't seen a number of Common Combat Vessel yet.
Type 94 radar platform is in, though I'm suspecting we'll yet see the CCV and Type 94 merge when the costs hit home.

£790m to enhance protection of the UK homeland and overseas bases. This will buy new radars and sensors.
Considering the ABM radar effort is delayed to 2028, this is likely the big ticket in that figure.

Establish a nuclear fuels programme. Big one right here.

£11.1bn on munitions and weapons to increase UK stockpiles, including Deep Precision Strike, low-cost cruise missiles and one-way effectors.

Build a new Integrated Air, Space and Missile Defence Operations Centre.

£330m new investment into critical underwater infrastructure protection.
Such a small sum for something so vital.

Build a new laboratory in Porton Down – to be named after Ernest Bevin.
Likely he'll be turning in his grave over this one. As he'd have preferred something to do with the nuclear deterrent.
Click to expand...
CCV numbers are confirmed by Jarvis at ≥6 hulls, meaning that we could see a growth in RN manned hulls weirdly enough.
 
zen said:
Haven't seen a number of Common Combat Vessel yet.
Type 94 radar platform is in, though I'm suspecting we'll yet see the CCV and Type 94 merge when the costs hit home.
Click to expand...
Aye, it seems the best way forward. Even if we can't afford the CCV to be a cruiser, we could still turn it into a modern Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate.
 
FighterJock said:
So the F-35A for the nuclear role is getting the go ahead WatcherZero, I take it that there is no change from the 12 aircraft that were going to be ordered.
Click to expand...
Still a rather stupid choice. Assuming they were ordered today it'll be the 2030s before we get any, and they won't provide any capability outside of nuke lobbing (because nobody is going to want to risk them doing anything that could degrade their capability or loosing a plane).

I can't claim to know the logistics behind it but I'm reasonably sure it'd be cheaper to adapt some of our warheads (or even produce new ones) and fit them to the Typhoon verses buying 12 unique planes and whatever fees we'll be giving the US for the "loan" of their nuclear bombs.
 
LightningFan1959 said:
I can't claim to know the logistics behind it but I'm reasonably sure it'd be cheaper to adapt some of our warheads (or even produce new ones) and fit them to the Typhoon verses buying 12 unique planes and whatever fees we'll be giving the US for the "loan" of their nuclear bombs.
Click to expand...
New Build WE.177 is possible but no option is cheap. However that was over 16" diameter as a bomb and B61 is I think 13"?

So arguably we'd need a new device of reduced diameter. Though the replacement for WE.177 was supposedly smaller diameter.

But just getting this all going, with limited staff and facilities focused on Astrea for Trident is likely too much of an ask without throwing a lot more money at the problem.
Add another £20bn roughly speaking.

A backdoor may yet open on this front both from France and the US. The latter exploring tactical warheads. I'd say 50Kt is back on the menu.
 
Building new WE.177 nuclear bombs would in my mind be daft as the designs for them would quite possibly be destroyed by now, the better option would be to build brand new nuclear bombs from the ground up it may be expensive in the short term but it is going to be worth it in the end.
 
Reuben James said:
CCV numbers are confirmed by Jarvis at ≥6 hulls, meaning that we could see a growth in RN manned hulls weirdly enough.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, SSNA is now 'up to 12'.
LightningFan1959 said:
I can't claim to know the logistics behind it but I'm reasonably sure it'd be cheaper to adapt some of our warheads (or even produce new ones) and fit them to the Typhoon verses buying 12 unique planes and whatever fees we'll be giving the US for the "loan" of their nuclear bombs.
Click to expand...
The entire purpose is either (a) to carry specifically American weapons to demonstrate (our) and ensure (their) NATO commitment, or (b) to be the thin end of the wedge for the RAF to buy more F-35As. A second new nuclear weapon carried by Typhoon achieves neither.
FighterJock said:
Building new WE.177 nuclear bombs would in my mind be daft as the designs for them would quite possibly be destroyed by now, the better option would be to build brand new nuclear bombs from the ground up it may be expensive in the short term but it is going to be worth it in the end.
Click to expand...
Even if the UK wanted to build new WE.177s, there'd have to be so many changes that it would be equivalent to a new weapon. As with resurrecting any 1960s design.
 
You notice they don’t say the quiet thing out loud over why all this extra defence spending is going to be needed that’s resource protection. I imagine things are going to get pretty chaotic in coming decades for obvious reasons. Remember that intelligence report the government tried to suppress in case it frightened people too much, and was then forced to publish?
 
I've seen a lot of negativity around the DIP. I don't think that's justified.

Firstly, I think that much of this negativity is a reflexive attack on a deeply unpopular government (according to polls), rather than on the document itself. I've seen several people attack concepts and plans that are either simply not present, or misunderstood, suggesting (as expected) that people are drawing opinions without reading the text.

Secondly, there's another class of critics that have read the document, but are rightfully suspicious of heavy reliance on drones. However, I think this has blinded some to the positive aspects of the DIP.

This is a plan that, if followed through, would massively boost the submarine fleet, deliver a fully reconstituted frigate fleet, new manned fighters, and a rebalancing of munitions quality to build critical mass.

It's a step-change from every other plan since the end of the 90s, especially for the RN.
 
Its funny, I've seen it attacked from both sides. Saying its relying on drones to do stuff on the cheap because they aren't spending enough, and then from the other side saying its not moving fast enough to scale drone production up from the lessons of the Ukraine war.

The reality is Britain is producing a quarter of a million drones a year now with the vast bulk being supplied to Ukraine (120,000 pre-assembled and 150,000 kits this year alone). When the Ukraine war ends there will be a global industrial crash as global consumption will drop 95%, there is no point scaling production far beyond post-war demand. No country is going to be using tens of thousands of one way drones per day.
 
Reuben James said:
It's a step-change from every other plan since the end of the 90s, especially for the RN.
Click to expand...

This.
No obvious cuts on anything for starters, this means two aircraft carriers plus 13 new build frigates (by the way, the doc confirms MK41´s and NSM for the T31´s), then we have "up to" 12 new SSN´s, a replacement program for the T45 fleet, a shed load of aerial, surface and subsurface high end unmanned systems and new amphibious floating thingys.
The AUKUS sub´s alone... if (a mighty big IF) the RN gets anything near twelve of them is a massive upgrade in capabilities.
 
Last edited:
zww11455 said:
Can AUKUS use Spearfish torpedoes？
Click to expand...
There´s not much AUKUS technical info on the public domain, but even with the (US) AN/BYG-1 CMS the (obvious) answer is (almost) certainly "Yes".
 
Last edited:
Sintra said:
This.
No obvious cuts on anything for starters, this means two aircraft carriers plus 13 new build frigates (by the way, the doc confirms MK41´s and NSM for the T31´s), then we have "up to" 12 new SSN´s, a replacement program for the T45 fleet, a shed load of aerial, surface and subsurface high end unmanned systems and new amphibious floating thingys.
The AUKUS sub´s alone... if (a mighty big IF) the RN gets anything near twelve of them is a massive upgrade in capabilities.
Click to expand...
I believe the plan also confirmed NSM for T26 as well, which will mean that British frigates becomes some of the most heavily armed in Europe, thanks to a combination of NSM and vertically-launched Stratus.
 
Sintra said:
There´s not much AUKUS technical info on the public domain, but even with the (US) AN/BYG-1 CMS the (obvious) answer is (almost) certainly "Yes".
Click to expand...
How to put it, I've seen a lot of people say AUKUS can't use Spearfish
 
zww11455 said:
Can AUKUS use Spearfish torpedoes？
Click to expand...
At the moment it can't use anything because it doesn't exist. When it does exist, it will be able to use whatever it has been built to use. If the UK plans on that including Spearfish, then it will be able to use Spearfish.
Reuben James said:
Firstly, I think that much of this negativity is a reflexive attack on a deeply unpopular government (according to polls), rather than on the document itself.
Click to expand...
Yes - while there are things that the defence community might have liked to see that aren't in it, that's always the case. You can always think of more kit that the armed forces could use, and the role of government is to decide how to prioritise defence against all the other demands on its resources. From that perspective, DIP might not be ideal, but it could be a lot worse.

Love it or loathe it, ignoring autonomy isn't the way to a capable modern fighting force, and a lot of the stuff that's being prioritised is what's needed to be 'warfighting ready' by the end of the decade. Horrible phrase, but an understandable goal.

Given the popularity of the current government, I suspect that they could have published anything at all (up to and including the proverbial 'motherhood and apple pie') and been roundly criticised from both left and right.
 
zww11455 said:
How to put it, I've seen a lot of people say AUKUS can't use Spearfish
Click to expand...

So the Royal Navy would buy twelve brand new SSN's that couldnt use its main anti ship weapon? And that (bit strange) assertion would be based on absolutely no public available source at al?
"Fishy" story... (pun intended :) )

Unless we are talking about the second hand US Navy Virginia's that are supposed to bridge the Aussie sub fleet from the Collins to the new nuclear AUKUS boats.


Cheers
 
Last edited:
Yellow Palace said:
The entire purpose is either (a) to carry specifically American weapons to demonstrate (our) and ensure (their) NATO commitment, or (b) to be the thin end of the wedge for the RAF to buy more F-35As. A second new nuclear weapon carried by Typhoon achieves neither.
Click to expand...
One can't help but think that the true goal is securing a native UK F-35A in War Thunder.
At least it's a solid reason. The rest feel perfectly ridiculous.
 
Was thinking that X-Bat drones make some sense for naval CCAs to accompany F-35B, although there aren't really any other choices for a STOVL carrier unless someone builds them.
 

Drones, fighters, armored vehicles: Highlights from the UK’s Defence Investment Plan​

Beyond top line spending, one of the leading takeaways from the DIP is the clear push to acquire and field autonomous systems, underpinned by a £5 billion investment in the technology, which includes plans for a "hybrid navy."
Click to expand...
https://breakingdefense.com/2026/06...hlights-from-the-uks-defence-investment-plan/
At sea:
  • The UK is scrapping plans to pursue a fleet of Type 83 destroyers in favor of at least six “hybrid” warships called Common Combat Vessels (CCVs). The ships, which will replace the current Type 45 air defense destroyers, are envisioned as working in tandem with aerial, surface and subsurface unmanned systems. The UK also will not go forward with the Type 32 frigate.
  • In all, the DIP allows for £1.5 billion to develop a broader hybrid navy concept, which builds off a “crewed where necessary, uncrewed where possible,” model, as a senior UK official put it ahead of the DIP’s rollout on Monday.
Click to expand...
In the air:
  • The most eye-catching parts of the DIP appear to center around funding valued at £8.6 billion for the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), designed to deliver a sixth-generation fighter jet in collaboration with Italy and Japan, known as Tempest in the UK.
  • The DIP also calls for a new Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program, akin to the ongoing US Air Force program, that aims to have a flying a CCA concept demonstrator “by at least 2030.” (As novel as such an ambition might seem, it is not the first time the UK has committed to a drone wingman demonstrator. In 2022, it axed Project Mosquito arguing that continued investment in the effort no longer made “a huge amount of sense.”)
  • Not to be left out, the UK’s current Eurofighter Typhoon will see £1.1 billion for upgrades and sustainment, while the UK is also readying for the arrival of a first batch of F-35A dual capable, fifth-generation fighter jets, set to enter service in the early 2030s. A production contract for the new fighter fleet has still to be signed, however.
  • But not all air programs were funded. The DIP specifically highlights that the Shadow R1 ISR aircraft will be set for “early retirement.”
Click to expand...
On land:
  • the UK plans to spend some £2.2 billion for new Boxer 8×8-wheeled, all-terrain, armoured vehicles and another £1.1 billion to complete production of upgraded Challenger 3 Main Battle Tanks. More than £500 million is earmarked for Light Mobility Vehicle (LMV) and Heavy Protected Mobility projects, as a successor to the Land Rover and a new 6×6 armoured vehicle system.
  • The plan calls for £150 million to be spent on developing unmanned ground vehicles, and another £220 million for Project NYX to build armed autonomous drones to operate with AH-64E Apache attack helicopters.
  • Counter-drone capabilities also get a surge of cash in the form of a £200 million investment.
Click to expand...

UK DIP Details Platform Types to Underpin Royal Navy Hybrid Force Structure and Atlantic Fleet Series​

The UK’s new Defence Investment Plan (DIP) has detailed four platform types to be introduced into Royal Navy (RN) service, as central elements of the RN’s new ‘hybrid’ force structure and the spine of its ‘Atlantic Fleet’ operational concept series.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...id-force-structure-and-atlantic-fleet-series/
Combining autonomy and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to enhance outputs, these platforms will include: the Type 92 uncrewed underwater vehicle (UUV), designed to augment sensing capacity and to support the RN’s incoming Type 26 anti-submarine warfare (ASW) frigates; and the Type 93 extra-large UUV (XLUUV), again bolstering ASW output including through integrating with crewed nuclear-powered attack submarines (including the in-service Astute-class SSNs).

These two platforms and programmes will support the ‘Atlantic Bastion’ requirement.
Click to expand...
The ‘Atlantic Shield’ and ‘Strike’ requirements will be supported, in uncrewed platform terms, by the Type 94 uncrewed sensing platform and the Type 91 uncrewed missile platform.
Click to expand...
The MoD statement said that, in the 2030s, the UK will expand the numbers of each of the four platform types. Also in the 2030s, it continued, it will “bring at least six Common Combat Vessels [CCVs] into service”: succeeding the six in-service Type 45 air-defence destroyers and superseding the Type 83 concept (the initial Type 45 replacement approach), the MoD said the CCVs will be “the brain of a networked maritime air-defence system”.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Sintra said:
So the Royal Navy would buy twelve brand new SSN's that couldnt use its main anti ship weapon? And that (bit strange) assertion would be based on absolutely no public available source at al?
"Fishy" story... (pun intended :) )

Unless we are talking about the second hand US Navy Virginia's that are supposed to bridge the Aussie sub fleet from the Collins to the new nuclear AUKUS boats.


Cheers
Click to expand...
Their reason is that Aukus wants to use a CMS from the United States
 
zww11455 said:
Their reason is that Aukus wants to use a CMS from the United States
Click to expand...

Its a concession to Australia that it will use the CMS they are already using in Australian subs and Virginia's which is already manufactured in Australia by a US company Raytheon Australia (gets the Australian workshare up). In practical terms it seems to be the British subs will use British weapons and the Australian subs will use US weapons that they already have an existing stockpile of.
 
UK Defense Spending Plan Bolsters Royal Air Force Combat Fleet

If there is a winner from the UK government’s long-delayed Defense Investment Plan, it is the Royal Air Force, which walks away from the funding saga with the money to modernize and expand its combat capabilities.

The 10-year blueprint, built around last year’s Strategic Defense Review, places the Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) on firmer footing, while paving the way for additional Lockheed Martin F-35 purchases and upgrades to the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) Eurofighter Typhoon fleet and advanced jet trainer fleet. It also promises a new collaborative combat aircraft.
Click to expand...
…

The commitment to several high-profile programs also comes with cuts, including to relatively young fleets. The British Army’s fleet of Leonardo AW159 Wildcat battlefield utility and reconnaissance helicopters will be withdrawn beginning in 2027 after a mere 12 years in service, while the Royal Navy will keep its version. The RAF will lose its Raytheon Shadow R1 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft.

Aging Boeing Chinooks will also go when they reach major maintenance milestones. That comes on top of the 14 Chinooks the UK Defense Ministry earmarked for retirement 18 months ago. The cuts will be partially offset by the introduction of Boeing MH-47Gs starting next year. Plans to field a narrowband element of the future Skynet 6 military satellite communication system have also been scrapped.
Click to expand...
…

The government’s desire to avoid increasing its debt burden and an unwillingness to raise taxes drove it to ask other departments to contribute 1% of their capital budgets to boost defense spending. Still unclear is whether the plan has the backing of Britain’s next prime minster. Starmer’s likely replacement—Andy Burnham, the former mayor of Manchester, England—has not commented on the defense plans.
Click to expand...
 
The additional F-35 purchases look quite promising Flyaway, I do wonder though if they are going to be more F-35Bs or more F-35As?
 
FighterJock said:
The additional F-35 purchases look quite promising Flyaway, I do wonder though if they are going to be more F-35Bs or more F-35As?
Click to expand...
It only mentions in the article about the F-35A purchase.
 
Screenshot 2026-07-03 214007.png

I'm interested in this line from the SDR, and wondering what would be available in the 2030-2035 period to fill the requirement. THAAD and Aegis Ashore are fairly well-known systems from the USA. It could also be SAMP/T NG, with additional future launchers to accomodate Aquila anti-ballistic missiles.
 
So it is going to be additional F-35As, that is good news as I have always have thought that twelve F-35As were just not good enough for the RAF especially for the nuclear role.
 
FighterJock said:
The additional F-35 purchases look quite promising Flyaway, I do wonder though if they are going to be more F-35Bs or more F-35As?
Click to expand...
I'd say that 12 F-35A are likely exactly the "additional F-35s" they meant.
Before they were an idea, now they're the plan.
 
What is frankly disturbingly useless is this tendency to double accounting and restatement as 'new' things already decided.

But ultimately this 'plan' has....if all goes well and nothing forces changes, a lifespan of 3 years before it likely gets binned for a completely new 'plan'
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom