The UK Ministry of Defense announced military modernization is to be slowed down by cost of living increases. The National Audit office said inflation and the global energy crisis are to most likely add billions of pounds (£) to the overall bill. This means flagship projects like the 'Royal Navies future commando force' could have funding deficiencies. MOD says that the report conducted means that the UK armed forces could end up "stretching itself too thin and will have to take some tough financial decisions". Between 2022 and 2032 the MOD is estimated to be spending £242 billion pound on new equipment spread across 1,800 different projects. The MOD claims to hopefully make efficiency savings of £13.1 billion pound, the National Audit office says this is an "optimistic assumption" which doesn't account for the global war in Ukraine and the energy crisis. The MOD supposedly has £2.6 billion pound on the side as a buffer against cost rises which watchdogs say is"simply not enough". The dreadnought submarine program is for example expected to cost £1.6 billion pounds, and predictions are to push the UK military bill up to £3 billion pounds. If overspends are accounted for in material it could equate to the MOD equipment plans to cost £7.3 billion pounds in deficit. This overall means the pace of modernization of the UK Military is to slow and is already leaving funding gaps in existing projects, the Royal Navy already said it'll remove its initial plans for Type 32 Frigates and Multirole Support Ships from the Equipment plan because of concerns they weren't affordable. The Royal Navies mind hunting and amphibious capabilities are also under funded according to reports.
The Type 45 is set to leave service in mid to late 2030s and their replacement the Type 83 is still in concept phase and the current equipment plan doesn't allocate it any funding meaning the Type 45 will have an extended life service.
UK Military's analysis/intel of the J-20 'Mighty Dragon' and its comparison made between the F-22. The report conducts the first sighting of the J-20 was at the 14th China International Airshow and refers to this as "China's top combat aircraft". It gathers it's one of the worlds few 5th generation aircraft and entered service in 2017 "as China's answer to the American F-22 Raptor". The report notes the J-20's production has been largely secretive and that the F-22 had "been around a lot longer and was shrouded in secrecy". The report also explains the F-22 is not exported to protect its secretive stealth technology "even to America's closest allies" it stresses.
The UK report goes onto say their are "some similarities" between the two aircraft which apparently lead to "speculation China's cyber-warfare team stole data from the United States".
Hard Stats displayed for the J-20 by UK Intelligence:
Number in Service: 74 (Estimated)
Top Speed: Mach 2.25
Combat Range: 1,100 nautical miles
Power Plant: x2 Shenyang WS-10C turbofan, with afterburner
Service Ceiling: 66,000 ft
Hard Stats for F-22
Number in Service: 123
Top Speed: Mach 2.25
Combat Range: 460 nautical miles
Power Plant: x2 Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100 turbofan, with afterburner
Service Ceiling: 65,000 ft
The report comments on the F-35 stating that even though the F-22 and J-20 are more closely matched it's more likely the J-20 will go up against the F-35. Also stating that the F-22 doesn't have a naval variant like the F-35 does to operate from aircraft carriers in the Asia Pacific Region. Production of the F-22 is said to have been stopped in 2011, while hundred more F-35's are in service with NATO and allied countries.
Hard Stats for F-35
Number in Service: 450 US (750 World Wide)
Top Speed: Mach 1.6
Combat Range: 669 nautical miles
Power Plant: x1 Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 with afterburner
Service Ceiling: 55,000 ft
The report concludes that the J-20 is faster and has a longer range than the F-35 and that later models of the J-20 have 'supercruise' (the ability to fly at high speed without afterburners). The report claims the J-20 has inferior stealth attributes to the the F-35 and is heavily out numbered to the American and NATO F-35's. Any true difference between the stealth jets are likely less visible technology such as sensor modules, onboard data processing and weapons targeting precision the report says.
Sources:
That Business Insider article on the J-20 is pure horse manure.
These quotes for example are pure gold plated dung.
"The J-20, likely based on stolen US designs, looks a lot like the US Air Force's F-22"
"Conventional wisdom holds that the J-20 is currently unable to face the US Air Force's F-22 in a straight-up dogfight"
And then they put this in the same page.
"The J-20's long-range missile, the PL-15, has a range over 200 km and can reach speeds up to Mach 4, outclassing its US counterpart, the AIM-120, which is believed to have a 160 km range"
These quotes for example are pure gold plated dung.
"The J-20, likely based on stolen US designs, looks a lot like the US Air Force's F-22"
"Conventional wisdom holds that the J-20 is currently unable to face the US Air Force's F-22 in a straight-up dogfight"
And then they put this in the same page.
"The J-20's long-range missile, the PL-15, has a range over 200 km and can reach speeds up to Mach 4, outclassing its US counterpart, the AIM-120, which is believed to have a 160 km range"
United Kingdom Prime Minister Rishi Sunak authorized handing over "Challeneger 2" main battle tanks to Ukraine forces on 14.1.2023. A number 10 spokeswoman stated over phone call "the Prime Minister offered Challenger 2 tanks and additional artillery systems as a sign of the UK’s ambition to intensify our support to Ukraine". Zelensky responded to the news in a tweet giving his thanks to the the UK PM and stating that this "not only strengthen us on the battlefield, but also send the right signal to other partners". Insiders of the UK government said the decision was to "ensure Ukrainian soldiers could be trained on how to use the mobile weapons before a potential spring offensive".
Sources:
It gave me the sensation of America Army calling British Army "lil bro", but it's so true I know I wouldn't lift a pinky to help UK.
Message: Buy more US weapons to become Tier 1...
The clown show continues...
The has ordered an urgent investigation amid claims that workers on a Trident nuclear armed submarine fixed broken bolts in the vessel’s reactor chamber using glue.
The faulty repairs on the cooling pipes aboard HMS Vanguard were found after one of the bolts fell off during an inspection, reported.
The bolt heads originally came off due to over-tightening. But, rather than replacing the damaged shafts, staff at the defence contractor Babcock implemented a quick fix and glued them back on.
Engineers at the contractor reported it as a procedural glitch after the problem was found, but did not mention the botched nature of the repair.
A navy source told the newspaper: “It’s a disgrace. You can’t cut corners with nuclear. Standards are standards. Nuclear standards are never compromised.”
The glued bolts held insulation in place on the coolant pipes in the nuclear reactor and were found just as workers were set to fire it up to full power for the first time, the newspaper reported.
Investigators will trawl records of repairs to find out when the bodged work occurred and who was ultimately responsible.
The spokesperson said that a “defect” was found on HMS Vanguard when in dry dock and that it was “promptly reported and fixed”.
The spokesperson said the defence secretary, Ben Wallace, met the chief executive of Babcock, David Lockwood, “to seek assurances about future work”.
Babcock is the MoD’s second-largest contractor and has multibillion pound contracts to maintain the navy’s Astute and Vanguard sub fleets.
A spokesperson for the company said: “Any quality-related issue is a huge disappointment, but our own robust inspection processes discovered the issue. There was no safety or operational impact from the work.”
The Guardian reported in December last year of safety fears as the submarines had been deployed at sea for .
Rob Forsyth, who helped command Polaris nuclear submarines in the 1970s, said the lengthy patrol times could lead to “boredom, complacency and an inevitable drop-off in standards”.
HMS Vanguard is one of four nuclear submarines that form part of the UK’s continuous at sea deterrent. The vessels are always out on patrol and are poised to strike in the unlikely event that Britain is hit with a nuclear attack.
An MoD spokesperson said: “As part of a planned inspection, a defect was found from work done in the past when HMS Vanguard was in dry dock. It was promptly reported and fixed.”
Royal Navy orders investigation into nuclear submarine ‘repaired with glue’
Claims made that broken bolts on HMS Vanguard’s reactor chamber were stuck on instead of replacedThe has ordered an urgent investigation amid claims that workers on a Trident nuclear armed submarine fixed broken bolts in the vessel’s reactor chamber using glue.
The faulty repairs on the cooling pipes aboard HMS Vanguard were found after one of the bolts fell off during an inspection, reported.
The bolt heads originally came off due to over-tightening. But, rather than replacing the damaged shafts, staff at the defence contractor Babcock implemented a quick fix and glued them back on.
Engineers at the contractor reported it as a procedural glitch after the problem was found, but did not mention the botched nature of the repair.
A navy source told the newspaper: “It’s a disgrace. You can’t cut corners with nuclear. Standards are standards. Nuclear standards are never compromised.”
The glued bolts held insulation in place on the coolant pipes in the nuclear reactor and were found just as workers were set to fire it up to full power for the first time, the newspaper reported.
Investigators will trawl records of repairs to find out when the bodged work occurred and who was ultimately responsible.
The spokesperson said that a “defect” was found on HMS Vanguard when in dry dock and that it was “promptly reported and fixed”.
The spokesperson said the defence secretary, Ben Wallace, met the chief executive of Babcock, David Lockwood, “to seek assurances about future work”.
Babcock is the MoD’s second-largest contractor and has multibillion pound contracts to maintain the navy’s Astute and Vanguard sub fleets.
A spokesperson for the company said: “Any quality-related issue is a huge disappointment, but our own robust inspection processes discovered the issue. There was no safety or operational impact from the work.”
The Guardian reported in December last year of safety fears as the submarines had been deployed at sea for .
Rob Forsyth, who helped command Polaris nuclear submarines in the 1970s, said the lengthy patrol times could lead to “boredom, complacency and an inevitable drop-off in standards”.
HMS Vanguard is one of four nuclear submarines that form part of the UK’s continuous at sea deterrent. The vessels are always out on patrol and are poised to strike in the unlikely event that Britain is hit with a nuclear attack.
An MoD spokesperson said: “As part of a planned inspection, a defect was found from work done in the past when HMS Vanguard was in dry dock. It was promptly reported and fixed.”
Lethe
Captain
Reading this reminds me of James Meek's 2014 article/book review about the (most recent) British experience in Afghanistan in the London Review of Books:
Now, a skeptic would of course reply to the bolded portion: "citation needed". But in any case, the reason this passage stuck in my memory (or rather, the reason I copied it to my collection) is because to whatever extent this can truly be said of the British armed forces, I suspect it applies twice over to those of my own nation.
Continuing:
Last edited: