UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

99PLAAFBalloons said:

The only way it gets funded is as a multilateral project imo. The Tories will be out in 2025 and Labour's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

are just the generic tosh an opposition party says (another defence review, a review to cut waste (maybe should look at all these reviews?) and support for veterans). I'll believe this materialises into a program when they actually start kitting out a hull

Click to expand...

Or maybe UK should just accept that it has no business trying to pretend to be a world-class force. Even if UK does build all the cool toys it wants, how will they ever sustain such a force beyond its immediate periphery?

What is even the purpose of such a force?

To lose it to Chinese missiles in a vain attempt to help United States? What a futile policy of self-sabotage.

HighGround said:

Or maybe UK should just accept that it has no business trying to pretend to be a world-class force. Even if UK does build all the cool toys it wants, how will they ever sustain such a force beyond its immediate periphery?

What is even the purpose of such a force?

To lose it to Chinese missiles in a vain attempt to help United States? What a futile policy of self-sabotage.

Click to expand...

The UK is the biggest investor in China, UK defense wants to make money and jobs. So far, so good. Doesn’t mean UK and China ever have to fight.

It’s not as if UK can sell to China.

HighGround said:

Or maybe UK should just accept that it has no business trying to pretend to be a world-class force. Even if UK does build all the cool toys it wants, how will they ever sustain such a force beyond its immediate periphery?

What is even the purpose of such a force?

To lose it to Chinese missiles in a vain attempt to help United States? What a futile policy of self-sabotage.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this at all lol, the UK/RN has little to no reason to be trying for power projection in the Indo-Pacific on the budget they're on and with huge competing non-defence social commitments

I see this mainly as a way to get some funding for BAE from Australia and whoever else wants to buy it for domestic skills, knowledge and job retention (the 2021 review says as much with the focus on defence's contribution towards developing a globally competitive shipbuilding industry). The ones that are procured by the RN will presumably be as better carrier escorts

gelgoog said:

How exactly are they going to finance a program like this? The last Type 45 destroyer was built only a decade ago. And they only have 6 of them. Anything larger is going to be unaffordable and it won't make any sense really. They should just fix existing issues with Type 45.
The article then goes on a tangent comparing the British Navy with Japan's. Well there is simply no comparison between both economies.

Click to expand...

They're planning according to a normal life cycle for that size of a ship. Simple as that.

gelgoog said:

They should just fix existing issues with Type 45.

Click to expand...

They are, read up on PIP and Sea Ceptor upgrades.

gelgoog said:

How exactly are they going to finance a program like this?

Click to expand...

Taxpayer revenue, the same as in every other country.

gelgoog said:

Anything larger is going to be unaffordable and it won't make any sense really.

Click to expand...

A larger destroyer than T45 wouldn't really make sense? Well tell that to PLAN, USN, Italian Navy, ROKN and JMSDF

zavve said:

A larger destroyer than T45 wouldn't really make sense? Well tell that to PLAN, USN, Italian Navy, ROKN and JMSDF

Click to expand...

You are not seriously comparing the PLAN, USN, and JMSDF with the Royal Navy right? This is not the XXth century anymore.

As for the Italian Navy their largest destroyers are similar in size to the Type 45. None of this 100 VLS cells nonsense.
To save money the Italians shared the ship design with the French i.e. the Horizon class frigate.

The ROKN's investment into large destroyers and LHDs is more than debatable as a reasonable use of money. If it wasn't for their huge shipbuilding industry paid by civilian shipbuilding I doubt those ships would have been build in the first place.

gelgoog said:

You are not seriously comparing the PLAN, USN, and JMSDF with the Royal Navy right? This is not the XXth century anymore.

Click to expand...

RN is quite comparable to JMSDF.
And they will benefit a lot from getting true destroyers.
They have 2 CSGs to cover, and type 26s in a proper high sea warfare need to be covered. Type 45/Aster-30 combination is just too weak to give frigates any freedom of independent maneuver.

gelgoog said:

As for the Italian Navy their largest destroyers are similar in size to the Type 45. None of this 100 VLS cells nonsense.

Click to expand...

But Italian horizon replacements are also 10'000 tonners...

The claimed specs of the Italian DDX are kind of stupid IMHO. 10,000 tons displacement with same weapons load as the Horizon frigate.
Basically an under armed cruiser meant to operate inside a bottled up sea of water like the Mediterranean.

British Armed Forces' procurement practices might be even worse than I wrote before. Really, the results they are getting of that large budget are bad.

Why buy 14 large (240 ton) refueling aircraft when you don't have even 170 combat jets? And if you are buying such aircraft, why you buy them in a configuration that they can't refuel your special mission aircraft?

BoraTas said:

British Armed Forces' procurement practices might be even worse than I wrote before. Really, the results they are getting of that large budget are bad.

Why buy 14 large (240 ton) refueling aircraft when you don't have even 170 combat jets? And if you are buying such aircraft, why you buy them in a configuration that they can't refuel your special mission aircraft?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1677704736785440770

Click to expand...

The booms are paid DLC, comes seperately from the main product.