Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has called for increased investment in Britain’s forces

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has called for increased investment in Britain’s forces

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 1st Jul 2022, 13:49
  #41 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,806 Likes on 1,195 Posts
The Army’s new recruitment drive insists robots cannot replace soldiers, just days after the Prime Minister said the UK did not need more troops. The spokesman added that it was “wrong to focus solely on the numbers” and stressed that the Government is investing in cyber warfare and other new technology.

However, Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the Army, warned in a speech on Tuesday at the Rusi think tank that “it would be perverse” for him to advocate for reducing the size of the Army “as a land war rages in Europe and Putin’s territorial ambitions extend into the rest of the decade and beyond Ukraine”.

Defence sources said: “Gen Sanders said we need to be ready and mobilised now, so we need to fill our ranks in both reserves and regulars really quickly. It would be great if this increase in defence spending manifested in a bigger army. That makes recruiting now even more important.”

Military sources added that the Army currently stood at 77,000 and was decreasing “all the time”.

“It takes 18 months to alter that trajectory, so the decision to pause or regrow needs to be taken faster than the 2.5 per cent target,” they said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...6996f2147b725d

Meanwhile Poland is ramping up their forces, after ordering 500 Himars, they have just bunged in an order for 32 multi-role AW149 helicopters to start deliveries possibly next year...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...4d0e0e0e6e0952

How is the Puma replacement coming along
NutLoose is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2022, 22:34
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,286
Received 500 Likes on 208 Posts
RE the Puma replacement....why not buy off the shelf Blackhawks?

Sikorsky built Blackhawks....same as the latest generation US Army Models?

Lots of reasons for that to be a smart move.
SASless is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2022, 07:01
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,404
Received 361 Likes on 210 Posts
"Lots of reasons for that to be a smart move."

Because politicians and their voters are always seduced by "support local companies" (we'll pass over the US tanker saga)

BAe, Airbus, Boeing etc don't provide all those jobs for retired officers and politicians for nothing................
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2022, 09:10
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 107 Likes on 68 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
RE the Puma replacement....why not buy off the shelf Blackhawks?

Sikorsky built Blackhawks....same as the latest generation US Army Models?

Lots of reasons for that to be a smart move.
I suspect UK and AUS are both waiting to see what the winner of FVL, UK has officially joined the program as observer status

rattman is online now  
Old 2nd Jul 2022, 09:15
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 74
Posts: 1,792
Received 8 Likes on 8 Posts
Then of course there might be the "Stealth Blackhawk" variant,,,,,,
Hat, coat etc.....
Haraka is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2022, 09:51
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Bzn
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Acehawk

Originally Posted by SASless
RE the Puma replacement....why not buy off the shelf Blackhawks?

Sikorsky built Blackhawks....same as the latest generation US Army Models?

Lots of reasons for that to be a smart move.

One of the prime contenders for the Puma replacement is offering exactly that, "previously owned" Blackhawks with new engines and gearboxes as well as a digital Garmin cockpit. It also gives the UK Mil the numbers they are after (circa 44). If they go down the Airbus or Leonardo route they will get half the required numbers, judging by the cost of the Polish deal. AceHawk seems to also tick the local jobs box as well, although up North instead of the traditional Yeovil location.
Poorly PA is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2022, 11:38
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,737
Received 77 Likes on 39 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
Nutty....Russia borders Ukraine....Germany was a very long way from Russia and in turn the Russian Supply lines were as long as the Germans but ran in the opposite direction.

The Russians received 400,000 Trucks and Jeeps from the United States....which allowed the Russians to supply its troops and move artillery.
Yep, because the Soviets were obsessed with only building tanks, and they had very logistic vehicle production.

Along with the 400k trucks and Jeeps, the USA also sent..
  • 14,000 airplanes
  • 8,000 tractors
  • 13,000 tanks
  • 1.5 million blankets
  • 15 million pairs of army boots
  • 107,000 tons of cotton
  • 2.7 million tons of petroleum products
  • 4.5 million tons of food
There are a couple of good TV documentaries called War Factories, and they have highlighted just how crap the USSR were at making pretty much anything other than tanks, and even little UK made almost as many tanks as the USSR did.
About the only thing the USSR had in abundance which it used was human beings as cannon fodder, pretty much no different to what its doing in Ukraine 75 years later.


GeeRam is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2022, 12:46
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 8,533
Received 85 Likes on 57 Posts
AceHawk seems to also tick the local jobs box as well, although up North instead of the traditional Yeovil location.
What infrastructure have they got? Track record?
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 2nd Jul 2022, 16:02
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,404
Received 361 Likes on 210 Posts
" If they go down the Airbus or Leonardo route they will get half the required numbers, judging by the cost of the Polish deal. AceHawk seems to also tick the local jobs box as well, although up North instead of the traditional Yeovil location."

But Airbus and Leonardo will wave the flag - and they are the ones who shovel jobs and money around the scenery - they'll claim also that you need national design and production because you cant't trust people - Trump might return! And, TBH, the experience of "upgrading " old kit sounds great but has led to some of the worst cost overruns we'v ever seen
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2022, 17:14
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
[color=#000000]" And, TBH, the experience of "upgrading " old kit sounds great but has led to some of the worst cost overruns we'v ever seen
And some glittering successes despite huge complexity, suggesting it is not the act of upgrading per se, but that there just might be some people who know how to do it, and some who don't.

RMPA/Nimrod 2000/Nimrod MRA4 is rightly held up as a prime example, but it is never mentioned that there was a sister programme which 'led' on key areas, and delivered ahead of time, under cost and to a better spec. That programme succeed by following some basic rules. Nimrod didn't. A solution emerges....
tucumseh is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2022, 07:25
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,404
Received 361 Likes on 210 Posts
Without revisiting in detail an ocean of past posts on the subject a PLAN is a good idea IIRC - and a line of responsibility.....
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2022, 15:29
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,183
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by SASless
RE the Puma replacement....why not buy off the shelf Blackhawks?

Sikorsky built Blackhawks....same as the latest generation US Army Models?

Lots of reasons for that to be a smart move.
Perhaps because we want something better, and a little less archaic?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2022, 17:08
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,352
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
Perhaps because we want something better, and a little less archaic?
I'm sure the various helo builders would all enthusiastically endorse that sentiment.
The actual recipients who have to debug the product and the treasury which has to pay the inevitable overruns, probably not so much.
etudiant is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.