UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Well, RN F-35B's or C's will NOT be coming out of USN or USMC production slots. That is a certainty. In fact, the USAF is going to have to wait for their F-35A's until the current fighter shortages in the USN and USMC are addressed. The current plan as I know it is to field the B model first for the Marines, followed as quickly as possible by the C. Even with current plans there will be more F/A-18C's and D's retired than total F/A-18E's and F's and F-35's brought on board. The USN is really hurting for aircraft right now, to the point of dragging F/A-18A's out of the bone yard to replace worn out C's. They get a quick upgrade, not to full C spec ( less all weather air to ground capability than a C ) and call them "Super A's".

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You have to look at the timescale. If the RN chose the C model as a follow on to the initial 60 or so B models, then the first order would be up to ten years away, not from the first few years of production. So we are talking about orders being placed around 2018-19 for delivery in 2020-2022 onwards. Hopefully the USN and USaf fighter gap will have closed somewhat by then.
 

Ambivalent

Junior Member
Well the fall back plan in case the F-35B doesn't come up to standard is to build HMS Queen Elizabeth as a STOVL carrier and use the existing Harriers as her air group, HMS Prince of Wales would then be built as a CATOBAR carrier from the outset and the F-35C would be ordered and Queen Elizabeth would then be refitted to CATOBAR standard at the earliest opportunity.

One of the big reasons why the UK is ticking with STOVL is that the VSTOL version of the F-35's F-135 engine uses a lot of technology which will be built in the UK by Rolls Royce. If it's cancelled then a lot of jobs and design expertise in the UK will be lost. Also there would be a lot of additional costs involved in switching to CATOBAR such as crew training, OK you could contract this out to the USN as the French do but you would also be throwing away the 30 odd years of experience that the RN has built up with VSTOL aircraft.

If F-35 is completely canned then as you say Rafale would be the only feasible option. Certainly you do get a lot of advantages, not least with the capability that the Hawkeye gives you.

No. There was a RN study of STOVL vs CATOBAR and it was determined that a STOVL carrier could achieve a higher daily sortie rate than a CATOBAR carrier of the same size with the same air wing. That is the primary reason the RN sticks to STOVL.
If the F-35 does not pan out for the RN, the F/A-18E/F would certainly be offered. Wouldn't that be an interesting cat fight?
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Looks like the Tridents are going to get the axe

UK's Brown signals nuclear subs reduction


By PAN PYLAS, Associated Press Writer – Wed Sep 23, 4:04 pm ET

UNITED NATIONS – British Prime Minister Gordon Brown signaled Wednesday at the U.N. General Assembly that he is prepared to scale back the country's Trident submarine nuclear deterrent as part of a "global bargain" to reduce the world's nuclear arsenal.
"If we are serious about the ambition of a nuclear-free world we will need statesmanship, not brinkmanship," he said.
Brown is expected to flesh out details of his statement on Thursday at the Security Council, in a special session on nonproliferation and disarmament convened by President Barack Obama. The United States is the current chair of the council.
In his address to the four other permanent members and the 10 rotating non-permanent members, Brown is expected to announce that Britain could scale back the planned 20-billion-pound ($33-billion) Trident modernization program from four submarines to three.
A subcommittee, including Britain's relevant government ministers, the chiefs of staff and the heads of the intelligence agencies, is expected to be instructed to come forward with detailed recommendations by the end of the year.
The future of Britain's nuclear arsenal has become a hot topic of debate as concerns over the country's public finances have escalated — borrowing has soared as tax revenues have plummeted during the recession and spending has spiked to pay for unemployment benefits and the bailout of the banks. Cutting the number of submarines could save billions over the coming years.
However, Brown dismissed suggestions that his initiative was motivated by the need to save money.
"Obviously there are cost implications in every decision, but that is not what is uppermost in our mind," he told listeners on a phone-in on the British Broadcasting Corp.'s Radio Five Live station.
Liam Fox, a Conservative Party lawmaker, said there was "nothing new" in what Brown is planning, and noted that in December 2006 the government had said it would look at having three submarines.
He said the Conservatives, favorites to win next year's general election, would back the plan so long as Britain can maintain continuous-at-sea patrols.
In his address to the General Assembly, Brown highlighted the nuclear issue as one of five priorities for the international community, together with the economy, climate change, terrorism and poverty.
"Global problems can only be mastered through global solutions," he said.
The presence of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at Thursday's Security Council meeting — Libya is one of the current rotating members — could make it difficult for Brown in the wake of bitter words over the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.
Al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, is the only man convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people — most of them American. Although al-Megrahi has always claimed innocence, he was found guilty by a special Scottish court in 2001 and sentenced to serve at least 27 years in prison.
He was released last month on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, a decision that disgusted U.S. families of the victims and drew outrage from the U.S. government.
In his opening remarks to the General Assembly, Brown managed a side-swipe on the Libyan leader, who earlier described the Security Council as the "terror council" for failing to prevent or intervene in dozens of wars around the world since its creation in 1945.
"I stand here to reaffirm the United Nations Charter, not to tear it up. I call on every nation to support its universal principles," Brown told the General Assembly.
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Not at all. They have been talking about only building three replacement boats for the four Vanguards for some time, purely as a cost saving measure. Cyclops has now decided to get some political capital out of something he was going to do anyway, to try and repair the damage done by the release of the Libyan bomber al Megrahi by the Scottish Government. Four boats are the minimum needed to guaratee 24/7/365 coverage, and if there was a way to do it with less believe me they would have axed one of the boats already. The 'cut' being spoken of, to be clear is NOT one of the current boats in service, but one of the replacement boats being planned. If the official figure is to be velieved about the cost of the program (£20Billion), then axing one boat will not save a quarter of the cost. Design and development wil soak up a large amount of the overall price, and the fouth unit of any ship class will always be the cheapest to build anyway (lessons learned during the build of preceding units mean the more you build, the less they cost individually). Axing SSBN(R)04 will at most save about £2Billion, and that saving won't be realised for at least ten years from now, if then.
 

Pointblank

Senior Member
Not at all. They have been talking about only building three replacement boats for the four Vanguards for some time, purely as a cost saving measure. Cyclops has now decided to get some political capital out of something he was going to do anyway, to try and repair the damage done by the release of the Libyan bomber al Megrahi by the Scottish Government. Four boats are the minimum needed to guaratee 24/7/365 coverage, and if there was a way to do it with less believe me they would have axed one of the boats already. The 'cut' being spoken of, to be clear is NOT one of the current boats in service, but one of the replacement boats being planned. If the official figure is to be velieved about the cost of the program (£20Billion), then axing one boat will not save a quarter of the cost. Design and development wil soak up a large amount of the overall price, and the fouth unit of any ship class will always be the cheapest to build anyway (lessons learned during the build of preceding units mean the more you build, the less they cost individually). Axing SSBN(R)04 will at most save about £2Billion, and that saving won't be realised for at least ten years from now, if then.

Then again, if the UK decides to increase the number of missiles and warheads per boat, it is not really a reduction of nuclear weapons per say.
 

Scratch

Captain
Then again, if the UK decides to increase the number of missiles and warheads per boat, it is not really a reduction of nuclear weapons per say.

I think quiet to the contrary the number of missiles per boat will actually decrease by four.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


UK to reduce missile payload of Successor SSBNs

By Richard Scott 19 March 2009

The UK's next generation of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines will carry only 12 missile tubes, four fewer than the Vanguard-class strategic missile submarines (SSBNs) they will replace, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has confirmed. ...

Is that still correct?
And could the number of warheads actually be increased or are there treaty limitations. While this may help to keep the # of warheads the same, a 25% reduction in platforms is pretty sure a hit on persistance.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Some Small news that got little Fan Fair At Desi Heckler and Kock introduced a new version of there Hk416 this being the smallest of them a Subcompact 416 with a 9.5" barrel and MP5 style (NOT M4) telescopic stock the reason I place it here is Rumor tells that they cooked it up for the British MOD
 

druid84

New Member
I found this article interesting, we all know about Englands budget problems and the fact they can't cancel the carriers being built, this says that the carriers will be built, but the Prince of Wales will be an amphibious carrier, only carrying helicopters, so, no JSF's.

If this goes through the UK will only have 1 carrier, 3 SSBN subs, things looking bleak for England.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
I found this article interesting, we all know about Englands budget problems and the fact they can't cancel the carriers being built, this says that the carriers will be built, but the Prince of Wales will be an amphibious carrier, only carrying helicopters, so, no JSF's.

If this goes through the UK will only have 1 carrier, 3 SSBN subs, things looking bleak for England.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is already covered on the Aircraft Carriers II thread. If you read the article, it is one of the worst pieces of journalism in years. The RN is cutting... absolutely nothing. We are still getting two carriers and an initial purchase of 50 F-35Bs. As we have been planning to do for some time. One 'on call' carrier and a second available at a few weeks notice at most. Just as we do now with the Lusty and the Ark. Whilst it may talk of no replacement for HMS OCEAN, remember she was a belated replacement for Hermes and the Previous Bulwark. Once the usefulness of a dedicated LPH made itself known, one was ordered. The official line back in the 70s and 80s was that the commando carrier capability would be rolled into the Invincibles, but in the 90s it was separated back out again. Now we are saying the LPH role will be rolled into the CVFs. I believe Ocean will be extended for a start, with a new OSD around 2022 or later and a replacement program (for both her and Argus) will appear in four or five years time, when finances will have improved...

Really this story is lazy and incompetant journalism, written by people who wouldn't know an aircraft carrier if you dropped it on their foot. The RN seems to have pulled off a masterstroke of spin with this story though, making it look like they have made HUGE cuts without actually sacrificing anything.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
the Telegraph said:
Bullets used by British soldiers are too small to defeat Taliban fighters, according to a report of a study of ammunition used on the front line.


By Alastair Jamieson
Published: 7:23AM GMT 28 Oct 2009
Bullets used by British soldiers are too small to defeat Taliban fighters, according to a report of a study of ammunition used on the front line.

A survey of more than 50 servicemen who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan concluded that the 5.56mm calibre rounds used by British soldiers 'tailed off' after 300 metres yet half of all Helmand firefights are fought between 300 and 900 metres.

It came as the wife of a British soldier who died in hospital weeks after being injured in a blast in Afghanistan paid tribute to her "best friend and wonderful husband".

The study, co-written by Nicholas Drummond, a strategy consultant and ex-Welsh Guards officer, described British soldiers' rifles as "not much more useful than a peashooter".

Taliban marksmen use powerful 7.62mm ammo for their AK47 machine guns, according to a report of the study in The Sun.

Mr Drummond told the newspaper that a British soldier couldn't attack the Taliban "with any certainty that if he hits the enemy he will kill or incapacitate him."

The study claims the ammunition is easily stopped by car doors. It added that Javelin anti-tank missiles, costing £100,000 each, are often fired at lone gunmen. Only one in four British, US and German troops has been issued with guns using 7.62mm ammunition.

The report calls for guns that take larger ammunition to replace all standard-issue SA80 rifles, which many believe were exposed as inadequate in Iraq in 2003.

The Ministry of Defence told the newspaper the 5.56mm calibre rounds used by United States and other Nato allies are "proven to be both accurate and powerful."
same debate here in the states but this is the first i have read of it in Europe.
 
Top