NATO and/or the 'Indo Pacific Shift'?
"Develop the next generation of naval vessels, including Type 32 frigates and Fleet Solid Support ships, and deliver our plans for eight Type 26 and five Type 31 frigates.
Progress our Carrier Strike capabilities, with at least 48 F-35s by 2025.
Progress our Carrier Strike capabilities, with at least 48 F-35s by 2025.
Thread Starter
Global Britain in a competitive age
Paragraph 17 of the overview
The UK is a European country with global interests, as an open economy and a maritime trading nation with a large diaspora. Our future prosperity will be enhanced by deepening our economic connections with dynamic parts of the world such as the Indo-Pacific, Africa and the Gulf, as well as trade with Europe. The precondition for Global Britain is the safety of our citizens at home and the security of the Euro-Atlantic region, where the bulk of the UK’s security focus will remain.
Paragraph 32 iii
NATO will remain the foundation of collective security in our home region of the Euro-Atlantic, where Russia remains the most acute threat to our security.
Somewhere there is something about "twenty four frigates by the end of the decade" but I cannot find it. Not sure how that works out with numbers....
Paragraph 17 of the overview
The UK is a European country with global interests, as an open economy and a maritime trading nation with a large diaspora. Our future prosperity will be enhanced by deepening our economic connections with dynamic parts of the world such as the Indo-Pacific, Africa and the Gulf, as well as trade with Europe. The precondition for Global Britain is the safety of our citizens at home and the security of the Euro-Atlantic region, where the bulk of the UK’s security focus will remain.
Paragraph 32 iii
NATO will remain the foundation of collective security in our home region of the Euro-Atlantic, where Russia remains the most acute threat to our security.
Somewhere there is something about "twenty four frigates by the end of the decade" but I cannot find it. Not sure how that works out with numbers....
WEBF,
No mention of 24 anything in the doc, the only mention of numbers was the previously (at least twice) announced 8 Type 26 and 5 Type 31 Frigates, and a new multirole ocean surveillance vessel. The 24 was a quote from a Johnson reply to a question in the debate following his announcement in the Commons this afternoon.
No mention of 24 anything in the doc, the only mention of numbers was the previously (at least twice) announced 8 Type 26 and 5 Type 31 Frigates, and a new multirole ocean surveillance vessel. The 24 was a quote from a Johnson reply to a question in the debate following his announcement in the Commons this afternoon.
Thread Starter
WEBF,
No mention of 24 anything in the doc, the only mention of numbers was the previously (at least twice) announced 8 Type 26 and 5 Type 31 Frigates, and a new multirole ocean surveillance vessel. The 24 was a quote from a Johnson reply to a question in the debate following his announcement in the Commons this afternoon.
No mention of 24 anything in the doc, the only mention of numbers was the previously (at least twice) announced 8 Type 26 and 5 Type 31 Frigates, and a new multirole ocean surveillance vessel. The 24 was a quote from a Johnson reply to a question in the debate following his announcement in the Commons this afternoon.
Anyway - wonder what the response will be from the new right will be? I am talking about the anti NATO, pro Russia, anti democracy loonies?
I don't think anyone really believes that we're going to be able to defend the Atlantic seaways, penetrate the Barents AND take on the PLA(N) WEBF
Most people thinks its just BoJo PR
Most people thinks its just BoJo PR
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATO's purpose ended at the end of the Cold War.
However there were and still are many people who have enjoyed the personal benefits that come with being a member of NATO. Those who enjoy them are against giving them up because in truth it would devalue their vaulted status they believe they have.
Since the Cold War ended, there have been attempt after attempt to reivent NATO, to use whatever justification they can. Otherwise it becomes the "Emperors New Clothes" with nothing of substance behind it.
Anything Russia does within its own borders is trumpeted up as being a threat to a member of NATO yet any action by a NATO member is overlooked.
The real danger is that the continued poking of the bear elicits a response, NATO will parrot as a justification for conflict and a "I told you so", all very fine until buckets of sunshine start.
USSR lost 1 in 7 of its population during WW2, UK lost 451,000 or less than 1% and had it suffered at same rate then 6.3 Million more UK citizens would have died, US lost 419,000 or 0.3%, if suffered the same casualties US would have lost 18 Million citizens. No amount of spinning will make the figures different.
Nobody seems to be able to answer about WTF would the Russians do with the Baltic states or other places if they invaded, there is not exactly a requirement for additional land.
War is ultimately about economic theft, west however with US Federal Debt 25% bigger than economy and individual State debt adding couple of trillion $$ onto this then ultimately something has to give. It is only a matter of time before the Debt burden does to the US what it did to the USSR in late 1980's. Issue then becomes "What Then ?"
However there were and still are many people who have enjoyed the personal benefits that come with being a member of NATO. Those who enjoy them are against giving them up because in truth it would devalue their vaulted status they believe they have.
Since the Cold War ended, there have been attempt after attempt to reivent NATO, to use whatever justification they can. Otherwise it becomes the "Emperors New Clothes" with nothing of substance behind it.
Anything Russia does within its own borders is trumpeted up as being a threat to a member of NATO yet any action by a NATO member is overlooked.
The real danger is that the continued poking of the bear elicits a response, NATO will parrot as a justification for conflict and a "I told you so", all very fine until buckets of sunshine start.
USSR lost 1 in 7 of its population during WW2, UK lost 451,000 or less than 1% and had it suffered at same rate then 6.3 Million more UK citizens would have died, US lost 419,000 or 0.3%, if suffered the same casualties US would have lost 18 Million citizens. No amount of spinning will make the figures different.
Nobody seems to be able to answer about WTF would the Russians do with the Baltic states or other places if they invaded, there is not exactly a requirement for additional land.
War is ultimately about economic theft, west however with US Federal Debt 25% bigger than economy and individual State debt adding couple of trillion $$ onto this then ultimately something has to give. It is only a matter of time before the Debt burden does to the US what it did to the USSR in late 1980's. Issue then becomes "What Then ?"
So the real question on population losses is 'are these WW2 losses really part of the thinking of today's Russian people or more importantly today's Russian politicians?'. I suspect they are just our way of trying to look at their perspective.
24 Frigates.
Boris did say
"By the end of this decade we will have twenty four frigates as opposed to the fifteen we have today."
I watched again on the BBC Parliament site and if anyone cares to listen it is at the 46 minute point.
Boris did say
"By the end of this decade we will have twenty four frigates as opposed to the fifteen we have today."
I watched again on the BBC Parliament site and if anyone cares to listen it is at the 46 minute point.
Pretty sure he should have said 24 escorts (ie frigates and destroyers) - there has been talk of an aspiration to increase from the current 19 to 24, by means of the Type32. But having all 24 in service by the end of the decade (as opposed to in service or in build) sounds an unfeasible stretch. If the true situation is an expansion to 24 escorts overall by the early 2030s that wouldn't be such a bad outcome.
By then the RN will be thinking about the T45 replacement.............
If there are only 15 escorts around that really means there are 5 available for service- if the RN send a couple with the QE to the S China Sea and one to the Barents they're getting a bit sparse everywhere else...........
Thread Starter
Someone put together an infographic on the Navy Lookout feed and showed that it was possible to increase frigate and destroyer numbers to 24, but not until 2035 or thereabouts, with current ships leaving service as planned. All very confusing. A56 things are bit more nuanced that just one in three being active.
"things are bit more nuanced that just one in three being active." - but that's the well worn rule of thumb used by people like the USN and the RN SSBN fleet WEBF
I just cannot believe that they are thinking of cutting the number of escorts NOW with the usual fairy-tale "we'll order a load more later" excuse. I think the RN needs at least 30 to cover the various roles the politicians keep loading on to them - remember what Nelson kept asking for................... frigates, not ships of the line
I just cannot believe that they are thinking of cutting the number of escorts NOW with the usual fairy-tale "we'll order a load more later" excuse. I think the RN needs at least 30 to cover the various roles the politicians keep loading on to them - remember what Nelson kept asking for................... frigates, not ships of the line
Thread Starter
Cuts would be a bad thing and cause problems, but building up to twenty four cannot be achieved until half way throughout the next decade - unless some current ships are kept in service longer.
As for nuance, the ships that are not deployed as such will do the short duration UK and NATO tasks which are actually really important. I was also referring to different levels of readiness.
As for nuance, the ships that are not deployed as such will do the short duration UK and NATO tasks which are actually really important. I was also referring to different levels of readiness.
The one in three is for overall force sizing - a long term average. It's not for figuring out how many ships will be available each week/month/year.
While not desirable, a short-term reduction may actually be less damaging than you'd think. There's an unusual confluence of programmes at the minute, which leaves more DD/FF in upkeep than is usual (T45 PIP and T23 SLEP/PGMU) compounded by a lack of industrial capacity (and funds) to execute those quickly. Losing a GP 23 or two saves you several tens of £M in upkeep funds, reduces the industrial burden so you get the more valuable ships (ASW T23) done earlier and the replacement date falls within the delivery window for T26/T31.
Not ideal, but some of those 23s really are in Triggers broom territory. Someone has (rightly) queried whether that money would be better spent addressing the future.
While not desirable, a short-term reduction may actually be less damaging than you'd think. There's an unusual confluence of programmes at the minute, which leaves more DD/FF in upkeep than is usual (T45 PIP and T23 SLEP/PGMU) compounded by a lack of industrial capacity (and funds) to execute those quickly. Losing a GP 23 or two saves you several tens of £M in upkeep funds, reduces the industrial burden so you get the more valuable ships (ASW T23) done earlier and the replacement date falls within the delivery window for T26/T31.
Not ideal, but some of those 23s really are in Triggers broom territory. Someone has (rightly) queried whether that money would be better spent addressing the future.
Good points Boffin - but I (and I'm sure you) can remember far too many examples where a UK Govt ( of either Party) claimed they "intended" to buy x F-35's or Frigates or .... and then, year by year the numbers fell steadily until the armed services only got 30-50% of what had been promised. 
Thread Starter
Just a few years ago the Ministerial directives to the RN included putting every possible ship to sea and 'sweating' current platforms. To support this, there have been structural changes regarding personnel and increasing personnel numbers by 3000 over three years.
Then the Prime Minister commits to 'twenty four' frigates (and destroyers) by the end of the decade. Just by building new ships this could not be achieved until 2035 or thereabouts, suggesting that some current ships will need to run on longer than planned.
NATO commitments are increasing, the Middle East is not calming down....
Then the Prime Minister commits to 'twenty four' frigates (and destroyers) by the end of the decade. Just by building new ships this could not be achieved until 2035 or thereabouts, suggesting that some current ships will need to run on longer than planned.
NATO commitments are increasing, the Middle East is not calming down....
Just a few years ago the Ministerial directives to the RN included putting every possible ship to sea and 'sweating' current platforms. To support this, there have been structural changes regarding personnel and increasing personnel numbers by 3000 over three years.
Then the Prime Minister commits to 'twenty four' frigates (and destroyers) by the end of the decade. Just by building new ships this could not be achieved until 2035 or thereabouts, suggesting that some current ships will need to run on longer than planned.
NATO commitments are increasing, the Middle East is not calming down....
Then the Prime Minister commits to 'twenty four' frigates (and destroyers) by the end of the decade. Just by building new ships this could not be achieved until 2035 or thereabouts, suggesting that some current ships will need to run on longer than planned.
NATO commitments are increasing, the Middle East is not calming down....
yeah but it doesn't look good...................... and it still doesn't fill the holes when you really need escorts
Anyone who would trust BoJo's promises is going to get a nasty surprise - his history is littered with mistruths
Anyone who would trust BoJo's promises is going to get a nasty surprise - his history is littered with mistruths
Thread Starter
Another reminder that we do need frigates and destroyers:
THIRD STRIKE FROM HMS MONTROSE AS NAVY BAGS £3 MILLION DRUGS
Drugs worth more than £3m to terrorists have been seized by Royal Navy warship HMS Montrose – her third bust in little over a month.
The frigate pounced on a suspect dhow in the northern Arabian Sea, recovering nearly three tonnes of hash and heroin in a ten-hour operation.
It comes on the back of two seizures in as many days in the same waters in mid-February when various illegal narcotics worth £11m were confiscated.
THIRD STRIKE FROM HMS MONTROSE AS NAVY BAGS £3 MILLION DRUGS
Drugs worth more than £3m to terrorists have been seized by Royal Navy warship HMS Montrose – her third bust in little over a month.
The frigate pounced on a suspect dhow in the northern Arabian Sea, recovering nearly three tonnes of hash and heroin in a ten-hour operation.
It comes on the back of two seizures in as many days in the same waters in mid-February when various illegal narcotics worth £11m were confiscated.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 23rd Mar 2021 at 12:10.
Another reminder that we do need frigates and destroyers: THIRD STRIKE FROM HMS MONTROSE AS NAVY BAGS £3 MILLION DRUGSDrugs worth more than £3m to terrorists have been seized by Royal Navy warship HMS Montrose – her third bust in little over a month.
The frigate pounced on a suspect dhow in the northern Arabian Sea, recovering nearly three tonnes of hash and heroin in a ten-hour operation.
It comes on the back of two seizures in as many days in the same waters in mid-February when various illegal narcotics worth £11m were confiscated.
The frigate pounced on a suspect dhow in the northern Arabian Sea, recovering nearly three tonnes of hash and heroin in a ten-hour operation.
It comes on the back of two seizures in as many days in the same waters in mid-February when various illegal narcotics worth £11m were confiscated.
The value of the drugs seized is always inflated hugely by measuring it at street prices, which include all the retail distribution markups essential to move an illegal product.
The bulk real value is at most a few percent of what is stated. Meanwhile, the military and the drug industry get more acquainted with each other.
Ask Mexico how well that worked out.