Defence Spending

[cat1]

my biggest problem with getting rid of the carriers while i do support it, is the fact that there would not be a ship bearing the late queens name.

Not a fan of that idea.

[Andy_99]

The carriers as others have said are a bit of a white elephant when operated by just the UK, but in the context of NATO Ops they're an asset although hamstrung a bit without the Cats & traps allowing other nations to operate fast air from them (Bar the USMC & any others with the F35B).
The government could make some serious savings in the Welfare state simply by putting the 'Bone-Idle' amongst us to work in order to earn their handouts. I'm not talking about those in genuine need only those who have zero intention to work, there's plenty out there & plenty of unskilled work out there that they could be tasked with freeing up cash in other pots (Much will be local Authorities) to carry out other projects.
The waste in the NHS is shocking, an example for me I had a full blood test at hospital recently, the GP surgery contacted me 'You need a Full Blood test' I've just had one at the hospital I replied 'Oh they don't share the results with us' so off I trot to an external service that's tasked by the NHS to take blood tests for the GP's how many of those at what £200 a pop for full screening happen in the UK per day. Doctors letters that used to be created by Medical secretaries get outsourced to India to create, they often come back incorrect when checked by the medical secretary, can they correct them No, they have to go back to India for correction which then gets charged back. These are only a couple of examples I know about.

If we invest in the defence industry as a whole OK it might cost us a bit in the short term but... in the longer term if we get back to making world class kit other countries will come asking to buy so not only improving our trade but also creating jobs which then reduces the burden on the welfare state etc.

Time the the UK to wake up & smell the coffee.

[Harkins]

This does sound good, but I have so many questions. Just a few of them...

Does 13 billion a year actually go very far? Does it actually pay for a couple of new regiments or fighter squadrons or a couple of submarines and frigates?

How much stuff will get chopped before 2027 when the increased spending starts?

Will we/can we buy less American kit going forward?

And a related question, is the UKs nuclear deterrent actually fully independent? Could we theoretically fire a nuclear missile at New York? Or do we need to spend a lot of money on developing a truly independent sovereign deterrent?

[cat1]

[Malcolm]

I support the carriers.

Part of the UK's responsibility within NATO has always been to secure the western Atlantic and the Faroes gap. For that you need anti-submarine capability, and for that you need a deck capable of operating up to a dozen ASW helos, together with a number of ASW frigates. You cannot do it with one or two helos based on 4 - 6 smaller decks (like off the back of a frigate/destroyer) - the coordination becomes impossible. Modern frigates are very good at detecting subs at long range, but they cannot pinpoint them for the purposes of prosecuting an attack without getting very close to the target, and that puts the ship at risk. You want ASW helos to go and pinpoint the target, and if required neutralize it.

The large deck then needs organic self defence capabilities within the group - which is best done with Anti Air Destroyers, some fast jet interceptors, and AEW. It has been shown time and again that land based assets cannot cover a fleet at any range offshore.

The problem is that once you get a large deck, a dozen helos, a squadron of fast jets, AEW etc, then the temptation is for mission creep to come in and to try and pretend you have a global capability. Two carriers (with in reality one in refit at any time) isn't anywhere near enough for this - you'd need 4 or 5, which is why we have 4 CASD Trident subs.

IMV the RAF has enough fast jets (Typhoons) and Tankers to protect the UK. Neither Typhoon nor F-35 have the range to strike any realistic enemy target directly from the UK and doing so means deploying to somewhere closer to the front line. If we're really going to operate land based AEW then I would support the expansion of E7 to 5 aircraft, simply because 3 aircraft will never be enough. I'm also concerned that the A-400 fleet is taking a hammering, not helped by a few of them being effectively 'written off'.

So my spending would be....

Increase the RN Frigate count to 10-12 Ships, with the aim to have 8 ready for sea at any time.
Increase the RN Destroyer count to 8-10 Ships, with the aim to have 6 ready for sea at any time.
Increase the RN Hunter Killer sub count to 8 boats, with the aim to have 4-6 ready for sea at any time.
Order a dozen or so new Merlin HM2's. I'm not convinced Drones can do their job yet.
Get the Army/Royal Marines back to a front line strength of 100K (not including reserves).
Maintain the RAF Typhoon fleet at roughly 120 aircraft. This may need a follow on order 24 frames to replace older Tranche 2's (with Tranche 4/5's).
Continue ordering the RAF/RN F-35 fleet with a target of 75-80 in service at any one time, and 4 frontline squadrons of about 10-12 jets each.
Order another 6-8 A400M's

The killer will not be the hardware costs IMV, it'll be finding and funding the people to actually operate the hardware.

[andrewn]

The carriers and F-35B just look like the wrong answers right now. A follow on order for 48 Typhoon and the intent to switch from F-35B to A should have been announced years ago. There's parallels with HS2 and the sunk cost fallacy, and the longer it goes on the worse it gets.

[RubyRoo]

This does sound good, but I have so many questions. Just a few of them...

Does 13 billion a year actually go very far? Does it actually pay for a couple of new regiments or fighter squadrons or a couple of submarines and frigates?

How much stuff will get chopped before 2027 when the increased spending starts?

Will we/can we buy less American kit going forward?

And a related question, is the UKs nuclear deterrent actually fully independent? Could we theoretically fire a nuclear missile at New York? Or do we need to spend a lot of money on developing a truly independent sovereign deterrent?

It certainly won't pay for as much as people think.

Those expecting for 74, 111 etc squadron to be coming back will probably have to think again.

There's also the additional problem of the Security Services now falling underneath the defence spending umbrella as that will eat up some of the cost. I can't find recent figures but in 21/22, their annual budget accounted for around £4 billion, so knock a bit more off that for modern day prices from the new defence budget immediately.

What the remainder of the money will do will allow for better personnel conditions and retention as well as upkeep of the current defence estate infrastructure which is urgently needed. Anything else is a bonus.

The UK now needs to push for major investment into sovereign defence spending and rely as little as possible on the US defence industry.

[Doughnut]

And a related question, is the UKs nuclear deterrent actually fully independent? Could we theoretically fire a nuclear missile at New York? Or do we need to spend a lot of money on developing a truly independent sovereign deterrent?

The question is can we even arm the nuclear missiles without USA approval / firing code ?
Do not think for one moment I am siding with CND but does the cost of maintaining the nuclear deterrent actually help the UK ability to defend its self ? apart from a seat at the "big table"
If a foreign sponsored terrorist group were to explode a single device (chemical, nuclear or biological) on mainland UK would the UK response be nuclear retaliation ?

Better to have the ability to strike long and hard with conventical weapons, either submarine launched cruise missiles or air launched from forward deployed carriers.
Typhoon seem to have done a pretty good job at attacking the Houti in Yemen from Cyprus with tanker support, and yes I do understand there was little or no opposing force.

[NorvilleRogers]

The carriers and F-35B just look like the wrong answers right now. A follow on order for 48 Typhoon and the intent to switch from F-35B to A should have been announced years ago. There's parallels with HS2 and the sunk cost fallacy, and the longer it goes on the worse it gets.

F-35A would require new tankers as the current Voyagers cannt refuel F-35A.

[RubyRoo]

It wouldn't require new tankers, just booms added onto the Voyagers which still leaves aerial refuelling entirely within the AirTanker PFI contract.

[EGDR]

And a related question, is the UKs nuclear deterrent actually fully independent? Could we theoretically fire a nuclear missile at New York? Or do we need to spend a lot of money on developing a truly independent sovereign deterrent?

The question is can we even arm the nuclear missiles without USA approval / firing code ?

Yes, to all of those. The Trident missiles loaded into our subs are picked from a common pool with US missiles from the Lockheed Martin maintenance facility. Any backdoors built into them would leave US missiles with the same vulnerabilities. Unlike the US we don't use arming codes for our missiles because we don't maintain the same 'beyond the grave' command facilities (E-6B, E-4B etc). Everything the submarine crew needs to fire the missiles is already on board the submarine and they are able to perform such a launch independent of direct contact from the UK Government (if so ordered by the PM in the letters of last resort).

Our current warhead design, Holbrook, is related to the US W76 because, after all, they're designed for the same missiles. But they're UK built, as are the future ones (Astraea).

[Alf]

It wouldn't require new tankers, just booms added onto the Voyagers which still leaves aerial refuelling entirely within the AirTanker PFI contract.

If its that simple why has it not been done already so the RC-135 and P-8 (and soon to arrive E-7) can be refuelled?

[AlexLee05]

It sounds like the Airtanker contract is extremely one-sided, they probably aren't willing to spend the money to upgrade them. Every other MRTT operator has booms fitted AFAIK so it's absolutely ridiculous that the UK doesn't. Same story with the A400 lacking AAR delivery capability

[EGDR]

As I understand it, AirTanker are not the ones vetoing any boom proposal, and have in fact been open to taking part in such an upgrade. The RAF, however, seemingly can't afford it.

[AlexLee05]

That's encouraging, maybe the MOD will use some of the extra money to make fit voyager with booms and A400 with refuel pods. Especially with the H47(ER) on the way we don't want to be reliant on the Americans to refuel our helicopters

[verreli]

... does the cost of maintaining the nuclear deterrent actually help the UK ability to defend its self ? apart from a seat at the "big table"

Yes !

[Malcolm]

That's encouraging, maybe the MOD will use some of the extra money to make fit voyager with booms and A400 with refuel pods. Especially with the H47(ER) on the way we don't want to be reliant on the Americans to refuel our helicopters

There is no point in the RAF having refuelling pods on their A400's, since the Airtanker contract would mean we couldn't use them! Airtanker have exclusive rights to supply MoD AAR capability (with a few exceptions).

[AlexLee05]

Would be interesting on what the exact wording of the contract is, small chance that that Airtanker contract only covers fixed wing therefore A400 could be heli's only

[Hurn]

Well Trump's got exactly what he wanted.

European countries are actually waking up and boosting their defence priorities.

[binbrook87]

I'm not a fan of Trump at all but whatever his motives (if he actually knows himself) it's given Europe a well needed wake up call. All those years of defence cuts will take years to repair but at least it's a step in the right direction.....