UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
I don't know about that particular incident but Type 45's IEPS has been nothing but trouble.

View attachment 74767
Per this image, I keep hearing that HMS Defender is now also in trouble but haven't find any official source saying this. Anyone heard anything?

Rule Britannia!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Frigate HMS Monmouth cut from Royal Navy fleet​

By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- July 27, 2021
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The long laid-up Type 23 Frigate has now left the fleet leaving the Royal Navy with 12 frigates.
The information came to light in a response to a written question submitted in the House of Commons.
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Broccoli

Senior Member
Many conservatives in Britain still think they are some sort empire and sitting on same table as America, China, Russia and possibly India. When India goes past UK economically we'll see propaganda onslaught against the ex-crown jewel.

Little offtopic but it explains all the statements coming from UK military.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Many conservatives in Britain still think they are some sort empire and sitting on same table as America, China, Russia and possibly India. When India goes past UK economically we'll see propaganda onslaught against the ex-crown jewel.

Little offtopic but it explains all the statements coming from UK military.
I don't think you could be further from the truth. It was a huge mistake for Tony Blair to cut the number of Type 45s from 12 to 8 and then 6. The cost savings from 12 to 8 could be understood, but they ended up spending as much or almost as much on 6 as 8 would have probably cost. However, because Blair wouldn't advance the MoD the money in a timely fashion the ordering process had to be strung out and the number of hulls had to be cut a second time.

I can promise you virtually all of the discussion in UK politics of India's economy catching up is on the opportunities that presents in terms of increased trade. India is seen fairly well in the UK, so there's not really any reason to feel bad (they also still have huge poverty issues that we don't). There is certainly no pride in the defence sector for the UK having a larger economy, not least because from about 1990 even when we had a much bigger economy successive governments in real terms cut or froze the defence budget.

They are delusional, I mean look at this quote:


Lmao. No, that indicates that it needs better project management for its ship programs to avoid having almost all their destroyers unavailable
Whoever is being quoted is both right and wrong. The current limit of active Type 45s is down to problems with the design and random events happening at the same time, e.g. ships being in refit. It's improbable the same propulsion issues will hit the Type 83s because we know what went wrong with the design.

However, it would make perfect sense to order at least 8 Type 83s. Much like with the Type 45s as I noted above, if we order more ships it will lower average hull costs. Having only 6 AAW destroyers can make it difficult to sustain more than one significant deployment at a time, or can threaten a deployment if the only ships you have run into trouble. But 8 gives you a cushion, so you can do things like put ships in for refit/repair without worrying about the impact on fleet operations.
 
Last edited:

Abominable

Captain
Registered Member
I don't think you could be further from the truth. It was a huge mistake for Tony Blair to cut the number of Type 45s from 12 to 8 and then 6. The cost savings from 12 to 8 could be understood, but they ended up spending as much or almost as much on 6 as 8 would have probably cost. However, because Blair wouldn't advance the MoD the money in a timely fashion the ordering process had to be strung out and the number of hulls had to be cut a second time.

I can promise you virtually all of the discussion in UK politics of India's economy catching up is on the opportunities that presents in terms of increased trade. India is seen fairly well in the UK, so there's not really any reason to feel bad (they also still have huge poverty issues that we don't). There is certainly no pride in the defence sector for the UK having a larger economy, not least because from about 1990 even when we had a much bigger economy successive governments in real terms cut or froze the defence budget.


Whoever is being quoted is both right and wrong. The current limit of active Type 45s is down to problems with the design and random events happening at the same time, e.g. ships being in refit. It's improbable the same propulsion issues will hit the Type 83s because we know what went wrong with the design.

However, it would make perfect sense to order at least 8 Type 83s. Much like with the Type 45s as I noted above, if we order more ships it will lower average hull costs. Having only 6 AAW destroyers can make it difficult to sustain more than one significant deployment at a time, or can threaten a deployment if the only ships you have run into trouble. But 8 gives you a cushion, so you can do things like put ships in for refit/repair without worrying about the impact on fleet operations.
I think his point is that the UK's reduction in budget hasn't led to a similar reduction in their geopolitical hubris.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think his point is that the UK's reduction in budget hasn't led to a similar reduction in their geopolitical hubris.

Yes how true. But I think our Mr. T is trying to move the goal post by saying "Great" Britain will still have it's geopolitical hubris if it weren't for the cuts. A classic of wanting to live in a what if world, as opposed to what is. Meanwhile blaming the labour administration in the process. Typically Tory tactics. If my students have written a piece like that, especially about economic of the past. He will get fat zero.

Least we forget, Mr T always harping in about the virtues of democracy. And the fact Tony Blair was voted in an historical
three times (only Mrs Thatchers have done that and that's with the Falkland feel good factor) is irrelevant to him i supposed.

So the government that has won three big victories at the polls, makes the decision to spend money in healing and educating it's populace instead of killing foreigners were taken. And everyone is happy about that by they way they voted. What's wrong with that?
 
Last edited:

Mr T

Senior Member
I think his point is that the UK's reduction in budget hasn't led to a similar reduction in their geopolitical hubris.
That wasn't what he said. He was suggesting that calling for more destroyers was somehow delusional or in your words hubris and that there would be anger or upset when India's economy has grown in nominal terms larger than ours.

As I pointed out, there probably would be a budget for 8 Type 83s if the money was provided in a timely fashion rather than stretched out over an artificially long period. Furthermore, India's growth has been well received in the UK because it's seen as a partner and not a competitor. That it used to be part of the British Empire doesn't change that, especially as Indian nationals provided a lot of support for the UK war effort during World War 2.

The idea that countries like the UK and by extension France can only afford 6 major AAW ships, and that wanting more is somehow demonstrating a colonial mindset, makes no sense at all.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
UK not being hubris.

China has said that aircraft carrier HMS Elizabeth’s foray into the South China Sea could ‘destabilise regional peace’.

The Observer view on the Royal Navy’s operation in the South China Sea​

Sailing into imperial delusions is no way to run foreign policy

Sun 1 Aug 2021 01.30 EDT

Link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Indian soldiers supporting "Great" Britain in WWII.

origin.jpg
 

Abominable

Captain
Registered Member
That wasn't what he said. He was suggesting that calling for more destroyers was somehow delusional or in your words hubris and that there would be anger or upset when India's economy has grown in nominal terms larger than ours.

As I pointed out, there probably would be a budget for 8 Type 83s if the money was provided in a timely fashion rather than stretched out over an artificially long period. Furthermore, India's growth has been well received in the UK because it's seen as a partner and not a competitor. That it used to be part of the British Empire doesn't change that, especially as Indian nationals provided a lot of support for the UK war effort during World War 2.

The idea that countries like the UK and by extension France can only afford 6 major AAW ships, and that wanting more is somehow demonstrating a colonial mindset, makes no sense at all.
Have as many type 83 as you wish. So long as the RN stay out of Chinese or Russian waters no one would care. Do you see any Chinese military vessels going up and down in the Irish sea?

The only reason the "carrier strike group" is still sailing and not at the bottom of the sea following their activities in Russia and China is because of America.

At least France has a credible independent nuclear weapons platform, I'll give them that. The UK doesn't even have that.
 

Top