UK Defence Equipment Plan 2021-2031

[RAFEngO74to09]

Microsoft Word - 20220215 EP21 draft content v1.1 FINAL OS (publishing.service.gov.uk) (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1055953/Defence_Equipment_Plan_2021.pdf)

[RAFEngO74to09]

In the Army Command Section: "The Army is also retiring its oldest CH-47 Chinook helicopters and purchasing newer variants of this operationally proven aircraft from the US." - whoever wrote this clearly has a grip on things !

[RAFEngO74to09]

In the Navy Command Section: "Additional investment has allowed the Merlin helicopters to be extended in service from 2029 until 2040"

[RAFEngO74to09]

In the Air Command Section:

"Funding for new A400M Atlas and additional purchase of F35B Lightning II (beyond the 48 the Department is already committed to) is not included in Air Command’s planned spend here and is held centrally."

"Air Command will retire equipment that has increasingly limited utility in the digital and future operating environment. This will include rationalising older fleets to improve efficiency, retiring Typhoon Tranche 1 by 2025, and Hawk T1. Air Command will also retire the BAe146 as planned by 2022, take the C130 Hercules out of service by 2023 and retire the E-3D Sentry in 2021."

[RAFEngO74to09]

Delays:
Brimstone 3A on Typloon: slip to Spring 2024
Meteor on F-35B: slip to 2027 - possibly later due to wider aircraft program issues
SPEAR Capatbility 3 on F-35B: slip to 2026 likely
ASRAAM Block 6 on Typhoon: slip to Spring 2022
ASRAAM Block 4 on F-35B: retain to at least 2025 until integration for ASRAAM 6 completed

[Flap Track 6]

In the Army Command Section: "The Army is also retiring its oldest CH-47 Chinook helicopters and purchasing newer variants of this operationally proven aircraft from the US." - whoever wrote this clearly has a grip on things !
The whole document gets this wrong. Medium Lift Helicopters are covered in the Army section and the Air Command responsibilities do not list support or medium lift helicopters.

It states 'consolidation of the Army's disparate fleet of medium lift helicopters from four platforms to one: including the replacement of Puma'

[Timelord]

The whole document gets this wrong. Medium Lift Helicopters are covered in the Army section and the Air Command responsibilities do not list support or medium lift helicopters.

It states 'consolidation of the Army's disparate fleet of medium lift helicopters from four platforms to one: including the replacement of Puma'

The Integrated Review last year did the same. Someone on here suggested it was because the helicopters were funded via an army budget line.

[Not_a_boffin]

The Integrated Review last year did the same. Someone on here suggested it was because the helicopters were funded via an army budget line.

They are. Joint Helicopter Command where joint is spelled a-r-m-y........

[trim it out]

They are. Joint Helicopter Command where joint is spelled a-r-m-y........
Although the article is very Puma specific wrt NMH, despite it being only one of the four platforms being replaced.

When is the decision due to be made public about what we're getting anyway?

[DuckDodgers]

It’s really not difficult to grasp, Chinook is owned & funded by the Land TLB so from a Center perspective it is an Army helicopter; the new F models acquired under FMS were also funded from the Land TLB. Twenty Two years later and the dinosaurs really don’t get it do they 🤦‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[Addlepate]

... retiring Typhoon Tranche 1 ...

I still think of Typhoon as new ... I feel old

[chaps1954]

Will there be some deep thinking after tonight

[pr00ne]

Will there be some deep thinking after tonight

With this hugely inept, self serving, truth distorting Government? Of course there won’t!

They, and Johnson and Wallace in particular, will continue to talk of expanding capability and global reach and presence, whilst continuing to reduce the Army by 10,000, retire Typhoons, retire Type 23 Frigates, retire a third of the air transport fleet, retire all the Army’s Infantry fighting vehicles whilst leaving the RN with no ship launched anti surface vessel weapon beyond a 4.5 inch gun.

[Asturias56]

"leaving the RN with no ship launched anti surface vessel weapon beyond a 4.5 inch gun."

That's always been one of the biggest criticisms of the T45's - somehow the money was never made available - crazy when you think of it :(​​​​​​​

[Asturias56]

"P-8A Poseidon. Regaining long-range maritime skills will take time and could be challenging."

Well I guess that proves what everyone on here has been saying for the last 12 years......................

[alfred_the_great]

"P-8A Poseidon. Regaining long-range maritime skills will take time and could be challenging."

Well I guess that proves what everyone on here has been saying for the last 12 years......................

I’ve worked with P8 in the Arctic and they were pretty top notch…

[Navaleye]

The 5" Mk45 mount fires the Volcano round at ranges of up to 90km and is effective against land and sea targets. At 20 rpm it could demolish an enemy ship very cost effectively. It will be on the T26 from the get go and should cover any delays in future anti-ship missiles.

The current 4.5" Mk 8 gives you 27km with base bleed ammunition, so 90km is a significant upgrade. and will "do" in most instances

[Brewster Buffalo]

Will there be some deep thinking after tonight

I hope so...cutting the Army from 80,000 to 70,000 looks like a mistake now. Perhaps some more Typhoons for the RAF?

[Navaleye]

The govt should delay the plan to remove Typhoon Tr1s. Buy replacement Harpoon for all major surface combatants and an UOR buy of the new Advanced Tactical Shovel System for for the army

[pr00ne]

The 5" Mk45 mount fires the Volcano round at ranges of up to 90km and is effective against land and sea targets. At 20 rpm it could demolish an enemy ship very cost effectively. It will be on the T26 from the get go and should cover any delays in future anti-ship missiles.

The current 4.5" Mk 8 gives you 27km with base bleed ammunition, so 90km is a significant upgrade. and will "do" in most instances

That totally ignores the armament and capabilities of Russian and Chinese vessels that the RN could well be involved with stand offs with in the coming days, let alone 2029!

No airborne anti-shipping capability on Lightning or Poseidon, no underwater to surface capability on RN submarines since sub-Harpoon was retired, and a small number of Wildcat that will soon maybe be armed with short range Sea Venom and Martlet missiles.

This capability gap out to the early 2030's was less of a concern prior to the Ukraine situation.

Our politicians are making boastful claims that they do not have the equipment to be able to back up.

UK armed forces now look seriously under armed and exposed in light of current threats.

What a waste of a defence budget.

[pr00ne]

The govt should delay the plan to remove Typhoon Tr1s. Buy replacement Harpoon for all major surface combatants and an UOR buy of the new Advanced Tactical Shovel System for for the army

Totally agree, But they won't! They will continue to make grand statements and gestures that we cannot back up whilst retiring existing equipment without replacement and reducing the size and capability of the forces in the name of economic expediency.

[Asturias56]

The problem , as ever, is how do you pay for it? When The Tories are already spending the highest proportion of GDP since Atlee's time and are desperate to get back to "low levels of taxation and Labour knows they will be crucified by the Press as "tax & spend" there is no national agreement on how much we can raise. Suggest cutting pensioner benefits, or education or the NHS and see the storm that descends on you. And yet this is where the money is actually spent.

Modern kit and modern people cost serious money - promises, speeches and photo opportunities are dirt cheap

[melmothtw]

The govt should delay the plan to remove Typhoon Tr1s

They already did that. The latest OSD date is a reversal of that earlier reversal. Surely you can't now expect a reversal of that reversal of that reversal?!

[pr00ne]

They already did that. The latest OSD date is a reversal of that earlier reversal. Surely you can't now expect a reversal of that reversal of that reversal?!

I think you'll find that the latest OSD is a reversal of the earlier reversal which was a reversal of the two previous OSD's. The upshot being that as a result of the IR, the RAF is going to lose 40 Typhoons that it thought it was going to have for many more years.

[pr00ne]

Money raised for PPE and Respirator supply, furlough funding and business support through Covid is the lie to what you claim. It can be, and has been, done.

[pr00ne]

I hope so...cutting the Army from 80,000 to 70,000 looks like a mistake now. Perhaps some more Typhoons for the RAF?

More Typhoons?

The Government is about to withdraw and scrap 40 RAF Typhoons without replacement. The replies to the PM in the house today about defence spending show clearly that there is going to be no reduction or delay in the cut backs and capability gaps this Government has planned for UK defence.

[Asturias56]

" It can be, and has been, done."

I agree - but that was done with the overwhelming support of the public - they all thought they were going to die.

I currently live in what could be described as a Tory heartland - but apart from me there is only one other person I know locally who is even vaguely defence orientated. We have one Councillor who served in the RAF - none of the others have served, worked or have family serving as far as I know. If I mention defence they all glaze over - just look at the newspapers - most of them report whats happening but apart from the Telegraph there's really no call for more kit or more troops.

[ORAC]

What difference would keeping the extra Typhoon squadrons make to what is happening in Ukraine - or possible future events in Eastern Europe?

Boots on the ground at least provide a return to Tripwire, the threat of confrontation with NATO and escalation. Not sure an extra 4-6 Typhoons deployed to Akrotiri or Rumania would do that.

One of the first things that Putin and Biden agreed is that, under no circumstances, would nuclear weapons be deployed or used in an6 confrontation. One one side that is a relief - on the other, without Tripwire or Flexible Response and the run down of NATO conventional forces in Central Europe, it leaves the east horribly exposed to a conventional attack.

[pr00ne]

What difference would keeping the extra Typhoon squadrons make to what is happening in Ukraine - or possible future events in Eastern Europe?

Boots on the ground at least provide a return to Tripwire, the threat of confrontation with NATO and escalation. Not sure an extra 4-6 Typhoons deployed to Akrotiri or Rumania would do that.

One of the first things that Putin and Biden agreed is that, under no circumstances, would nuclear weapons be deployed or used in an6 confrontation. One one side that is a relief - on the other, without Tripwire or Flexible Response and the run down of NATO conventional forces in Central Europe, it leaves the east horribly exposed to a conventional attack.

ORAC,

No material difference to what is happening in Ukraine whatsoever.

But the lie that Johnson and co keep on trotting out about defence spending and capability must be a huge comfort to Putin as he notes constant UK capability reductions. To at least halt this nonsense would go some small way to signalling resolve and ensuring that he goes no further than Ukraine. It would also be a huge comfort to folk in places like Estonia.

[pr00ne]

" It can be, and has been, done."

I agree - but that was done with the overwhelming support of the public - they all thought they were going to die.

I currently live in what could be described as a Tory heartland - but apart from me there is only one other person I know locally who is even vaguely defence orientated. We have one Councillor who served in the RAF - none of the others have served, worked or have family serving as far as I know. If I mention defence they all glaze over - just look at the newspapers - most of them report whats happening but apart from the Telegraph there's really no call for more kit or more troops.

I for one am quite happy that we live in a land where defence is so low profile.

As to only the Telegraph calling for more kit or more troops, if you had listened or watched the various speeches in the House this morning in response to the statement on Ukraine by the PM, you would have seen many such calls emanating from all across the house.

[Navaleye]

I think you'll find that the latest OSD is a reversal of the earlier reversal which was a reversal of the two previous OSD's. The upshot being that as a result of the IR, the RAF is going to lose 40 Typhoons that it thought it was going to have for many more years.

Last I heard they are going in 2025. They could easily be extended if needed. Why not give some to Ireland to plug their air defence gap?

[Brewster Buffalo]

What difference would keeping the extra Typhoon squadrons make to what is happening in Ukraine - or possible future events in Eastern Europe?
............
Nothing short term I agree....but it shows intent - that we note that Russia is using its military forces to get its way in Eastern Ukraine and so we are increasing our forces to defend ourselves against that threat being used elsewhere.

[Baldeep Inminj]

What difference would keeping the extra Typhoon squadrons make to what is happening in Ukraine - or possible future events in Eastern Europe?

Boots on the ground at least provide a return to Tripwire, the threat of confrontation with NATO and escalation. Not sure an extra 4-6 Typhoons deployed to Akrotiri or Rumania would do that.

One of the first things that Putin and Biden agreed is that, under no circumstances, would nuclear weapons be deployed or used in an6 confrontation. One one side that is a relief - on the other, without Tripwire or Flexible Response and the run down of NATO conventional forces in Central Europe, it leaves the east horribly exposed to a conventional attack.

Does anyone seriously believe Putin when he says he will not use Nuclear Weapons under any circumstances? He said he was not preparing to invade Ukraine as his troops massed. Once there, he said it was an exercise and he had no plans to invade. He has now invaded. His word is utterly worthless.

When the shooting starts, one of 2 things will happen - Russia will start to 'win' or start to 'lose'. If they win quickly in Ukraine, will he try to ride his luck and push into NATO territory? If he does, NATO will respond and I believe at this point Russia will start to lose. Putin, as I have said before, would rather die than see this happen. If he believes that Russia is in danger of failing in his ambitions and of being 'beaten', then I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he would use Nukes without hesitation. This is his life's quest and his enduring legacy - he will do anything to succeed.

Right now, as he readies tanks and troops, we respond with paper threats and sanctions - he must be laughing all the way to Kiev...or Warsaw. He has proven beyond doubt that he is irrational and untruthful. Those who take comfort in his statement regarding non-use of Nukes are naiive and deluded, IMHO.

I believe that whatever will happen ,will happen quickly - probably before any of the cuts take effect.

[melmothtw]

Last I heard they are going in 2025. They could easily be extended if needed. Why not give some to Ireland to plug their air defence gap?

Because, if the MoD is to be believed, we are not scrapping these Typhoons for cost reasons but because they are no longer sustainable as viable combat aircraft.

I know, I don't believe that either.

[Video Mixdown]

Why not give some to Ireland to plug their air defence gap?
I'd rather see them scrapped. If Ireland want to defend their airspace they can pay for it like everyone else.

[Addlepate]

... retire Type 23 Frigates ...

T23 replaced by T26 GCS & T31, though?

[Finningley Boy]

In the Air Command Section:

"Funding for new A400M Atlas and additional purchase of F35B Lightning II (beyond the 48 the Department is already committed to) is not included in Air Command’s planned spend here and is held centrally."

"Air Command will retire equipment that has increasingly limited utility in the digital and future operating environment. This will include rationalising older fleets to improve efficiency, retiring Typhoon Tranche 1 by 2025, and Hawk T1. Air Command will also retire the BAe146 as planned by 2022, take the C130 Hercules out of service by 2023 and retire the E-3D Sentry in 2021."
I didn't know there was still an Air Command? I thought it was the entire RAF therefore no command structure any longer.

FB

[Asturias56]

"you would have seen many such calls emanating from all across the house."

yes and many from members that in the past have tried to cut costs and expenditure

I don't honestly think that MP's have any real influence any more in the UK - they're lobby fodder for the party management and the public think they're as trustworthy as used car salesmen

[pr00ne]

"you would have seen many such calls emanating from all across the house."

yes and many from members that in the past have tried to cut costs and expenditure

I don't honestly think that MP's have any real influence any more in the UK - they're lobby fodder for the party management and the public think they're as trustworthy as used car salesmen

But, they are our legislature. They make the laws and the Governing party runs the country. Each and every one of them has a Parliamentary vote, that is a LOT of influence!

[NutLoose]

You would think they would rip it up and start again as the world situation has changed in the last month significantly.

[SamYeager]

You would think they would rip it up and start again as the world situation has changed in the last month significantly.
The problem with that thought is that it's not 1982 and we don't have a certain female PM in charge.

[Dan Gerous]

The problem with that thought is that it's not 1982 and we don't have a certain female PM in charge.
Liz is ready and waiting. :yuk:

[pr00ne]

The problem with that thought is that it's not 1982 and we don't have a certain female PM in charge.

It was thanks to the policies and approach of that female PM's administration that we lost the Falklands in the first place!

[Not_a_boffin]

You would think they would rip it up and start again as the world situation has changed in the last month significantly.

Thing is, ripping it all up and starting again is probably unnecessary. The fundamental question we need to ask ourselves is this - "Is the UK willing to significantly increase our forces in Europe (think BAOR and RAFG-lite) and is that contingent on the major European land powers actually pulling their weight?" The subsidiary question then becomes "how much can we afford - and does that compromise other UK security priorities in the wider world?"

The nub of it is whether we as a nation are prepared to conduct large-scale armoured warfare in the middle of Europe against a peer enemy. If we are, fine. Get the heavy metal on order, cull the Light Infantry capbadges and buy large stocks of ammunition. If we're not, then upscale the Combat Air force, enablers like Wedgetail and buy lots of ammunition.

[Asturias56]

"The nub of it is whether we as a nation are prepared to conduct large-scale armoured warfare in the middle of Europe against a peer enemy. If we are, fine."

You've hit the nail right on the head Boffin - - we're back to the 60's - do we prioritise Europe or East of Suez? there is only one answer I think

[Not_a_boffin]

"The nub of it is whether we as a nation are prepared to conduct large-scale armoured warfare in the middle of Europe against a peer enemy. If we are, fine."

You've hit the nail right on the head Boffin - - we're back to the 60's - do we prioritise Europe or East of Suez? there is only one answer I think

I don't think there is. The world is a very different place to the 60s. For a kick off there is a much larger NATO land component much further east than it was - and a much reduced opfor..That directly affects the calculation - and of course brings into question the willingness (or otherwise) of certain powers to pull their weight. There is also a much larger and potentially more aggressive threat in the Asia Pac region, that was not there before and which may offer a threat to our interests globally.

Those factors mean it isn't a straight choice - and why we have to be absolutely clear as to any rationale that would support a willingness on the part of the UK to equip and train to fight a large-scale armoured war on the other side of Europe.

[Frostchamber]

"The nub of it is whether we as a nation are prepared to conduct large-scale armoured warfare in the middle of Europe against a peer enemy. If we are, fine."

You've hit the nail right on the head Boffin - - we're back to the 60's - do we prioritise Europe or East of Suez? there is only one answer I think

I'd suggest it's not so much whether the UK is prepared to conduct large-scale armoured warfare in the middle of Europe, as a question of how the UK can best contribute to the overall western posture and capability - eg by playing to our strengths and maybe making a (better) contribution where we best can - which may not be on the plains of central Europe. Others in NATO may be better placed to do that while we major on other stuff.