Have read on MSN that Bo Jo is to increase Defence by £16.5bn over 4 years, this is in addition to an already 0.5% increase above inflation yearly to 2025, which means an extra £21.5bn over that period.
"Beam me up Scotty there's no intelligent life here!!!!!"
Realistically, most of it just goes on the £13 billion hole in the equipment budget.
The mist begins to clear . . .
Boris Johnson vows to make UK 'foremost naval power in Europe' with boost to defence budget
Boris Johnson vows to make UK 'foremost naval power in Europe' with boost to defence budget
The PM warns the "international situation is now more perilous and intensely competitive than at any time since the Cold War".news.sky.com
It's the money to use to fight the fish wars with France after a No-Deal Brexit . . .
cheers,
Robin.
The Type 32 is a New Frigate to follow on from the Type 31 possibly with a better radar, Area Air Defence Radar & Missiles and possibly Land Attack capability.
I had a quick look on line and the images shown for the Type-32 appear to be the Venator?!?!
I am surprised that they have used the numbers in the 30's, I would have thought that the 80 series would have been more in line with the Multi Purpose role of the 31's.
I had a quick look on line and the images shown for the Type-32 appear to be the Venator?!?!
I am surprised that they have used the numbers in the 30's, I would have thought that the 80 series would have been more in line with the Multi Purpose role of the 31's.
Oh, I suspect not. The 20 series is specifically ASW ships (even the Type 21, just built for the wrong era of ASW). And I really doubt that there have been a Type 27-29 yet, given that the Type 26 isn't even built yet.I had a quick look on line and the images shown for the Type-32 appear to be the Venator?!?!
I am surprised that they have used the numbers in the 30's, I would have thought that the 80 series would have been more in line with the Multi Purpose role of the 31's.
True but I think we should actually see this as in the Type 20 series, just skipping numbers associated with other designs. Which obviously beggars the question just what we're those other designs?
There's also a more subtle signal, that Type 31 assembly isn't as fundamentally tied to Scottish yards......
Ah but....
I dimly reccal talk of variants of the Type 26 labeled Type 27 and Type 28 at the start of the Type 26.
One being a AAW focused variant and the other more GP.
So it's easy in that light and the subsequent efforts to produce a cheaper Type 26 that a Type 29 and Type 30 could have been forthcoming at the time. Trying to strip out yet more cost and crew.
All being BAE Systems and thus prone to their tendency to overprice such.
Hence why in short order a Type 31 is arrived at.
Ah but....
I dimly reccal talk of variants of the Type 26 labeled Type 27 and Type 28 at the start of the Type 26.
One being a AAW focused variant and the other more GP.
So it's easy in that light and the subsequent efforts to produce a cheaper Type 26 that a Type 29 and Type 30 could have been forthcoming at the time. Trying to strip out yet more cost and crew.
All being BAE Systems and thus prone to their tendency to overprice such.
Hence why in short order a Type 31 is arrived at
You know it might be like the EH101 started out as a typing error, along with it originally being Marlin....Ah but....
I dimly reccal talk of variants of the Type 26 labeled Type 27 and Type 28 at the start of the Type 26.
One being a AAW focused variant and the other more GP.
So it's easy in that light and the subsequent efforts to produce a cheaper Type 26 that a Type 29 and Type 30 could have been forthcoming at the time. Trying to strip out yet more cost and crew.
All being BAE Systems and thus prone to their tendency to overprice such.
Hence why in short order a Type 31 is arrived at.
OK, I wasn't plugged in enough in RN shipbuilding at the time to hear about those. Thanks.
Still, I think a separate 30 series makes sense and is probably what they had in mind.
I recall talk of AAW Type 27s, and a few mentions of a Type 28 - but it many have been people musing, not any reflection on a program plan.Ah but....
I dimly reccal talk of variants of the Type 26 labeled Type 27 and Type 28 at the start of the Type 26.
One being a AAW focused variant and the other more GP.
So it's easy in that light and the subsequent efforts to produce a cheaper Type 26 that a Type 29 and Type 30 could have been forthcoming at the time. Trying to strip out yet more cost and crew.
All being BAE Systems and thus prone to their tendency to overprice such.
Hence why in short order a Type 31 is arrived at
Could you be recalling the C1 - C3 concepts of the FSC of the late 90's early 00's.
I recall talk of AAW Type 27s, and a few mentions of a Type 28 - but it many have been people musing, not any reflection on a program plan.Ah but....
I dimly reccal talk of variants of the Type 26 labeled Type 27 and Type 28 at the start of the Type 26.
One being a AAW focused variant and the other more GP.
So it's easy in that light and the subsequent efforts to produce a cheaper Type 26 that a Type 29 and Type 30 could have been forthcoming at the time. Trying to strip out yet more cost and crew.
All being BAE Systems and thus prone to their tendency to overprice such.
Hence why in short order a Type 31 is arrived at
Could you be recalling the C1 - C3 concepts of the FSC of the late 90's early 00's.
However 3 and 8 can on a printer running out of ink and being quite worn, start look very similar. This whole Type 31 business could potentially be traced back to some document talking about a modern Type 81-like concept, that was misread by a journalist or mandarin who just jumped to the wrong conclusion and the term stuck.
That's just websites posting up an image of of a failed Type 31 contender, possibly because one of their sources said the 32 may not utilise the type 31 design.I had a quick look on line and the images shown for the Type-32 appear to be the Venator?!?!
I am surprised that they have used the numbers in the 30's, I would have thought that the 80 series would have been more in line with the Multi Purpose role of the 31's.
However 3 and 8 can on a printer running out of ink and being quite worn, start look very similar. This whole Type 31 business could potentially be traced back to some document talking about a modern Type 81-like concept, that was misread by a journalist or mandarin who just jumped to the wrong conclusion and the term stuck.
Well, sure it's possible But is that more likely than someone at MoD or the Admiralty saying, "We have the 40 series for AAW ships, and the 20 series for ASW ships. But we haven't had the 30 series. Let's use it for these new general purpose ships."?
To answer your questions; Boxer is a new vehicle for the Strike Bdes (replacing Mastiffs pretending to be APCs). There is currently no money to replace the FV432 although Boxer or the former Warrior Armoured Battlefield Support Vehicles (ABSV) program, old turretless re-roled Warriors, would be suitable but the ABSV program is not currently funded. Remember only 245 Warriors will get the full Warrior Capability Sustainment Program (WCSP) with a new turret (380 in total will receive updates) so that leaves 300ish spare hulls. I think more Ares is OK but expensive and I have no idea on how much room is in the back. Stormer is now only in British service for the Stormer HVM air defence vehicle and a support variant. Panther is/has left service and will be replaced by the US JVLT. Hope that helps.What will Boxer replace? Also why not buy extra Ares to replace FV432, or are they too expensive? What about Stormer, proven vehicle and already in service so has an established support system that could be expanded? Or what about Warrior how many are intended to be upgraded and could any balance be used to replace it?
Also what about the story that the whole fleet of Panthers were to be sold? What is the likely replacement if it is true JSTVL?
Correct ref crew reduction and they were also a bit of a maintenance hog. Also the rear stowage area was not included in the armour protected area. Did you notice that the Russians built it as the Rys' in Russia under licence?What was the problem with Panther, I have read that they were found to be very cramped when Bowman was fitted, reducing the crew from 4 to 3?