UK Defence Policy (hardware & troops)

[diy_fun_uk]

We hear a lot these days about modern warfare no longer being fought on the proverbial battleground. Try telling that to the Ukrainians. However I digress.

As a % of our GDP, defence spending has been decreasing since the 60s (source: SIPRI).
Troop numbers (UK Army) to be reduced to 72.5k (source: UK Parliament).

My question is this. Given we are no longer within the EU and, given recent events, is it time for a major rethink of our existing defence policy? And if you think 'yes', in what way? Should our GDP spend be increased? Should we be increasing not decreasing troop numbers? Should we be investing in more hardware across our forces e.g. aircraft carriers, aircraft, tanks, artillery? Do we need more than 4 nuclear submarines?

In short, whilst we would hope much of this would be there in the form of a deterrent (i.e. not used in anger) does our current policy and strategy leave us exposed as a nation should we ever be threatened with attack in a more traditional manner i.e. not cyber.

 

[Notch7]

The biggest problem for me is not defence spending but the West’s enthusiasm for selling arms to any despotic leader, we always end up fighting arms made by ourselves or our allies.

 

[Odds]

The best thing the UK can do at present is to make damn sure the war in Ukraine doesn't spread beyond its borders.
Same goes for NATO.
Those eejits calling for a no-fly zone should think ahead.

 

[IT Minion]

Do we need more than 4 nuclear submarines?

Fewer, the four Bomber submarines are insanely expensive when you include their warheads.

We could have an equal number of Attack submarines and afford to get some nice modern Leopard 2 tanks for the same money.

 

[Dork Lard]

I've just had a brilliant idea. Why don't we just give the keys to the treasury to BAe ???

 

[Doug99]

A significant problem today is the retention of experienced/trained personnel.
When I joined the navy in 1974 straight from school, my only ambition was to travel the world.
During my first 20 years I achieved it many times over on different ships, enjoying long periods of shore jobs between sea drafts.
Today, there are less ships and less personnel, but no reduction in the Navy commitments to patrol the high seas. Crew sea/shore ratios are under significant pressure.
A specialised technician can regularly be tasked to fill a gap caused by illness, irrespective of how long he has been ashore.
Sailors who moan. are always reminded of the saying "Its Life In a Blue Suit - You shouldn't have signed up if you cant take the pace"
During my time in the Andrew, I managed the pace and enjoyed my time. But if someone today asked me if I would recommend a life/career at sea, I would have to have a long, long think about it.

 

[IT Minion]

Third hand reports I've had from people on the Queen Elizabeth and the supporting ships was that the last year was brutal. Virtually no port visits on their world tour, the ships Gym shut and when the weather was bad you couldn't even exercise on deck.

 

[just pumps]

Third hand reports I've had from people on the Queen Elizabeth and the supporting ships was that the last year was brutal. Virtually no port visits on their world tour, the ships Gym shut and when the weather was bad you couldn't even exercise on deck.

Im sure you know damn well why that was.

 

[Diver Fred]

"the Andrew"

Gosh, how long is it since you left? I was never in but know the term from my first boss (who was in Fleet Air Arm in 2nd WW). father in law - in 'the Andrew' in the same period (stationed in the West Indies) didn't know the term nor does a few other people. A few of the long term senior chaps I worked with, based on Drakes Island, seem to think only around half the recruits knew the term.
I do think it's a nice nickname for the Navy.

Still, as someone who spends a lot of time at or in the sea for pleasure I find it surprising of the numbers of 'professional' sailors who don't know or understand the 'Red' or 'White' duster references.

 

[Doug99]

Gosh, how long is it since you left? I was never in but know the term from my first boss (who was in Fleet Air Arm in 2nd WW). father in law - in 'the Andrew' in the same period (stationed in the West Indies) didn't know the term nor does a few other people. A few of the long term senior chaps I worked with, based on Drakes Island, seem to think only around half the recruits knew the term.
I do think it's a nice nickname for the Navy.

Still, as someone who spends a lot of time at or in the sea for pleasure I find it surprising of the numbers of 'professional' sailors who don't know or understand the 'Red' or 'White' duster references.

I retired in 2010 after 36yrs service. The reduction in the size of our Navy and other Services has been depressing to watch.

 

[Justin Passing]

Small countries (like us) having significant long range nukes is good.
e.g. If Russia tries to invade they get significantly nuked by H bombs, so they wouldn't.
Offensively they're less use because we'd be obliterated too. Still fine

I expect to see many thousands of drones - UAVs. Cheap, shortish range but each can knock out a tank. Hard to stop large numbers of anything like that. Predominately useful as a defensive weapon.
I looked up the cost of military drones - from $6000 to $120 million(!).
The US is recruiting more game-players who can steer drones remotely very well, than they are actual pilots.

If each euro country had say 50,000 tank-disabing drones, cost say £1bn, Pootin wouldn't have got far.
They wouldn't individually need pilots, they can find their own targets with AI. This is doable now.

No new technology in there so far.
We have to consider other methods, such as poisons. We know how to wipe out vast populations with those. Viruses & vaccines will be coming along too. Just think if some small country (N Korea? Israel? Taiwan? Iran?) vaccinated its own people then let out a modified bat virus with 50+% mortality. Not very far off at all.

Everywhere you look there are new threats. Satellites, cyber...
We're dooomed, honestly.

 

[IT Minion]

Im sure you know damn well why that was.

...and irrespective of the cause it's yet another bit of wear and tear on morale...

 

[AngleEyes]

The best thing the UK can do at present is to make damn sure the war in Ukraine doesn't spread beyond its borders.
Same goes for NATO.
Those eejits calling for a no-fly zone should think ahead.

What was the point of the Budapest Memorandum then?
If it had been honoured in 2014, we wouldn't be where we are now.
If NATO is always going to back down because Putin (or whoever) threatens use of nuclear weapons, then there is no nuclear deterrent.

 

[transam]

The best thing the UK can do at present is to make damn sure the war in Ukraine doesn't spread beyond its borders.
Same goes for NATO.
Those eejits calling for a no-fly zone should think ahead.

I would agree with

invoking a no fly zone would resort in nato air craft (?) having to down Russian planes which the Russians would see as an act of war ??

how ever will or could a situation arise where nato would have to get involved directly in Ukraine ?

for example ( and just as an example )

mass executions ?
The use chemical weapons ?
Thermobaric bombs ?

Russian attacks on humanitarian orgs working in Ukraine ?

etc etc

 

[Dork Lard]

Some of you really do need to switch of your tellyvideos & perhaps expand your choice of sources where you get your news.

You are dreaming up stupid solutions to problems that simply don't exist.