British Eurofighter Finally Gets Advanced Swashplate AESA Radar
Manual Conscription is to come back into focus as numbers in the UK's armed forces hit record lows, with 73,000 active personnel planned. It's estimated by General Sanders Britain needs at least a 120,000 personnel of active, reserve and special reserve and other senior military personnel argue the UK needs at least 500,000 soldiers. It's also said a lack of funding and initiative to modernize UK forces also plagues the countries armed forces going forward.
All Brits were warned of needing to do conscription service and potentially form a civilians militia in threat of a potential war with Russia. A NATO Commander also warns of the need for conscription for a potential land war between "NATO and Vladimir Putin's forces".
"So there is a real threat to peace in the Euro-Atlantic region - and the way to preserve peace is deterrence, effective military deterrence, conventional and nuclear," he said.
"That means being ready for the worst case, which is war with Russia. So that means our armed forces have got to have the numbers, the capabilities, the logistics, the training needed." -General Sir Richard
Sources:
All Brits were warned of needing to do conscription service and potentially form a civilians militia in threat of a potential war with Russia. A NATO Commander also warns of the need for conscription for a potential land war between "NATO and Vladimir Putin's forces".
"So there is a real threat to peace in the Euro-Atlantic region - and the way to preserve peace is deterrence, effective military deterrence, conventional and nuclear," he said.
"That means being ready for the worst case, which is war with Russia. So that means our armed forces have got to have the numbers, the capabilities, the logistics, the training needed." -General Sir Richard
Sources:
If they want to achieve depopulation, it's the way to go. To make this happen the prerogative will be removing passport or a bunch of people will just flee abroad. We will see UK become MK (morselled kingdom) in an instant too.
The US is to put nukes along Britain's shorelines in the event of war with Russia that yield an explosive payload three times bigger than the nukes dropped on Hiroshima. RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk has been confirmed to be one of these locations to house the US nuclear weapons which apparently during the cold war was the location of US nukes in the past since 2008. It's estimated by an official, Adam Bower that UK citizens should prepare for war with Russia in the next 20 years.
Sources:
Sources:
The situation of an ancient naval power:
British warships lack firepower to attack Houthi land targets
Former defence chief brands Royal Navy missile limitations ‘a scandal and completely unsatisfactory'
Britain’s warships cannot attack Houthi targets on land because they lack the firepower, in a situation described by former defence chiefs as a “scandal”.
None of the Royal Navy’s destroyers or frigates have the ability to fire missiles at targets on land, leaving the US to carry out the majority of strikes on Houthi targets with support from
A British defence source said HMS Diamond, the destroyer stationed in the Red Sea, had not joined retaliatory strikes on Houthi targets because it did not have “the capability to fire to land targets”. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it had instead been targeting shipping in the Red Sea”.
This weekend, after becoming the latest vessel targeted by Houthi rebels.
One former rear admiral suggested that Britain’s inability to strike the Iran-backed Houthi movement’s bases from warships highlighted how the Navy would be unable to “go toe to toe” with Chinese and Russian warships.
Currently, the only weapons on destroyers that can fire at other ships or land are artillery guns at the front of each vessel. While at land targets, the UK’s only options for such strikes are deploying planes or submarines, five of which were reported to be unavailable at one point in the autumn.
Tobias Ellwood, the former chairman of the Commons defence committee, warned that the situation was unsustainable and urged Grant Shapps, the Defence Secretary, to conduct an urgent review. “We can’t continue to do this with a surface fleet that’s too small and cannot fire on land at range,” Mr Ellwood said.
, now the head of the Armed Forces, was among navy chiefs warning of a need to “speed up our acquisition processes” for weapons including “land attack missile systems” five years ago, when he was First Sea Lord.
During the first few months of Boris Johnson’s premiership, Sir Tony publicly advocated replacing Harpoon anti-ship missiles with a weapon that could be used to attack land targets.
However, the Harpoon was retired from the Navy last year and its temporary replacement, which can hit land targets, has only been installed on one vessel so far as part of a trial and has yet to be fired. Eventually, it will be rolled out to 11 frigates and destroyers before a new cruise missile system is expected to be introduced in 2028.
A former senior defence chief said that it was scandalous that Navy ships were not currently equipped with surface-to-surface missiles.
The ex-chief said: “It’s clearly a scandal and completely unsatisfactory. This is what happens when the Royal Navy is forced to make crucial decisions which can affect capability. The UK is now having to fly RAF jets thousands of miles to do the job of what a surface-to-surface missile can do.”
The disclosures come after Carlos Del Toro, the US navy secretary, warned that “given the near-term threats to the UK and US”, investments in the Royal Navy were “significantly important”.
MPs said the absence of land attack missiles left UK warships akin to “porcupines” – well-defended vessels with insufficient offensive capabilities.
Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a former senior naval officer, said that the lack of a proper surface-to-surface missile had left the Navy exposed. He said: “The Naval Strike Missile is a fudge. It’s a sticking plaster to show we have some capability.
“The real worry is that in encounter actions and we are going to see more and more of these issues. We, the UK, haven’t thought about the scenarios within which those weapons might be used.
“You need to look at the effect you want to have and that effect should be that when a British frigate or destroyer turns up, the Chinese and the Russians say oh f—, it’s the Brits. That’s what a deterrence is all about.
“Instead they are going to say, it’s got a pop gun on the front, no surface-to-surface missiles and a helicopter which I can shoot down with a drone so why are we worried?
“The point is you don’t bring a knife to a gun fight, and at the moment we have the knives and they have the guns.”
Mark Francois, the former armed forces minister, said: “The lack of a land attack missile from the Royal Navy’s surface fleet was specifically highlighted in a defence committee report some two years ago. It is encouraging that this missile is now on order but also disappointing that it is still not yet in operational service.”
Mr Francois added that it was “embarrassing” that one of the Navy’s three minesweeper vessels was taken out of action earlier this month when it collided with another British mine hunter in Bahrain. “The most important naval capability that we provide for our American allies are the three mine countermeasures vessels based in Bahrain,” he said.
On Saturday, Mr Shapps said: “It is our duty to protect freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and we remain as committed to that cause as ever.”
A MoD spokesman said: “As with all coalition operations, commanders select the best equipment for the job. HMS Diamond is an air defence destroyer, which has been directly involved in successfully destroying Houthi drones targeting shipping in the Red Sea. Equally, the Royal Air Force has the capability to strike land targets with high precision, which is why Typhoon aircraft strikes have reduced the Houthis ability to conduct these attacks.”
An MoD source added: “We have already shown with our Typhoon capability that we are a leading force among our allies in defending the Red Sea. We are proud of our brave service men and women for all they are doing ... it’s nonsense to suggest anything except that we are playing a key role.”
"However, the Harpoon was retired from the Navy last year and its temporary replacement, the Norwegian-made Naval Strike Missile, which can hit land targets, has only been installed on one vessel so far as part of a trial and has yet to be fired. Eventually, it will be rolled out to 11 frigates and destroyers before a new cruise missile system is expected to be introduced in 2028."
You can't make this shit up. So only one UK ship has long range anti-shipping and surface attack capabilities? Even a Russian Buyan corvette can do better than that.
You can't make this shit up. So only one UK ship has long range anti-shipping and surface attack capabilities? Even a Russian Buyan corvette can do better than that.
It's funny and a paradox that they talk about nuke and troop numbers against the same threat... nuke for war with Russia means that your troops will vanish in an instant anyway if they are used. The northern hemisphere infrastructures would be moslty glassed still whatever the number of troops you have.
Putting nukes all over the place is asking for an accident to happen in the long term. We have seen mishandling before in the US, luckily it was not intended for target practice.
Seems like Opium War but roles reversed. Too corrupt to load ship with proper munition, yet have ambition to challenge a navy more than 10 times stronger.
That gave me a good chuckle when I read about it. The Russian military is weak and irrelevant but also powerful enough to threaten the combined might of NATO and invade a nuclear power? Our government can't seem to make their mind up which one it is.
The strategic plan for Britain in NATO is to be a giant unsinkable aircraft carrier for the US. The nukes along British shorelines, increased number of recruits and manual conscription plans are in-case America doesn't come to Britain's aid. And with the changing of US presidency the aim of the US is 50 / 50 between a Biden supporting NATO government or a Trump America First government. The waters have never been so rocky and the foundations are showing cracks in the infrastructure so to say.