Almost all of it is well reasoned except I cannot fathom why Mike Martin wants to give up GCAP/Tempest. The UK should give up its aerospace industry? Abandon Japan and Italy? Discontinue what is likely to be its most successful defense export program? This is crazy. It’s Britain’s number two defense priority. He is right about the Royal Navy needing a lot more money.
That genuinely threw me GCAP is almost like the space race the technology and innovations that will flow out of it could affect everything from materials science to human performance, let alone the industrial and economic impact plus with the fall of Fcas it paints the uk as a serious and pragmatic partner to work when needs align.
Could not agree more; great way to describe it. Tempest will likely be the only 6th gen aircraft available to the West (or whatever it is now). The US is only building 185 NGAD fighters. This means they don’t intend to export it, not that there would be many interested buyers. Would we all really give up air superiority to just the US and China for the next 40 years?
Very true on the NGAD point! And even in the states where they can throw money at the problem 300mn a pop for an aircraft adds up quickly(plus boeings issues) it is already looking at being delayed, add in issues with workforce due to so many high level projects at once, they might end up looking at the overlap between the b21 and ngad and change tact especially with cca development and lockheed showing off concepts of a new f35 with longer range and payload.
I think the US will successfully juggle those existing programs, though there will be delays. Lockheed Martin is neck deep in the F-35 and 18 months behind schedule on block IV. Northrop Grumman is building the B-21 and Boeing the NGAD/F-47. Where I think they will fall down is the F/A-XX. Carrier aviation doesn’t seem to be a priority. The F/A-18 is long in the tooth and still only 3 of 11 carriers are certified for the F-35. I’m not sure any of the 3 primes have the spare talent and capacity for another large fighter program.
The US Navy is disintegrating before our eyes. I would not be surprised if the US suspended carrier production after the Kennedy and Enterprise are complete. There is no replacement for the Ticonderoga cruisers. We’re still building Arleigh Burke destroyers but they are at their design limits. We just scrapped the new frigate for Coast Guard patrol vessels. The littoral combat ships (corvettes) were a complete disaster with some being retired at just 8 years. There seems to be a focus on submarines but there has not been an expansion of the production lines. The idea of a new giant battleship is just silly. At this rate, the US navy will be a hollowed-out force in just a few decades and there’s no quick or easy fix.
True they will probably manage but yes faxx seems far off which maybe should of been the priority over ngad considering the b21 is doing well and on schedule and budget.
God where do you start with the us navy looks like more u turns to come if anyone has sense, probably stuck with 2 or 3 bbgx then have to pivot back to ddgx, the carrier issues keep piling up at least they have some lighting carriers up and running now, ddgx seems more like a tricondoroga replacement so maybe see a more high low fleet with a u turn on constellations plus some usv missile barges and cancel the ffx(which costs like 3.5bn some how for the first ship of a class already in production). The shipbuilding and especially sub builder workforce issue seems pretty bad alot of staff aging out while new workers quiting over poor conditions or pay.
Im a bit more hopeful of the RN even if they have gone drone mad the 1sl will be replaced soon and they will figure out a radar picket lusv wont work and isnt cheap and will pivot back to destoryers and the original fads idea with potential a few extra "ccv"(t32)frigates in the fleet, thankfully the t45s have a good bit life left in them.
I think for shipbuilding in general theres got to be some sort of push to drag back some commercial shipbuilding from china to shore up European and usa yards to help end the boom and bust and keep design houses hot to allow fleets to grow at speed again unfortunately that would still take a decade or 2 to do.
That’s an interesting thought about procurement. I would have assumed that an avionics and radar upgrade would be a good life extension for the F-22 which might have then prioritized F/A-XX. Maybe the F-22’s are experiencing unexpected engine or airframe stress.
The US Navy seems doomed. Instead of rebuilding old shipyards and training apprentices, the strategy seems to be outsourcing. I believe Babcock UK already has large signed orders for submarine components and there’s talk about Japan and South Korea building surface ships. I think America should’ve built a bunch of Canada’s River class frigates which are basically British type 26’s but with American weapons and radar.
I have a particular affinity for the Royal Navy so it’s been hard watching it wither. The new frigates look great but the industry needs an always-on build model. The boom and bust cycles are counterproductive and expensive. The hybrid Navy idea is interesting. I am all for distributed lethality but it’s not coming anytime soon. £1.5B is R&D money, not steel cutting money. The MRSS and Type 83 cancellations are painful and I fear there may be fewer than 12 AUKUS subs. I think there’s no getting around that the RN probably needs another £10-15B in funding over the next 4 years.
I’m not convinced we measure or define things properly. I agree with Michael, we need a fully defined force for both the current/immediate future as well as for the long term future defence. But also I feel we need to break away from percentage spending. Surely the defined need will stay the same regardless of how well or poorly our economy is performing and therefore a set figure that can rise with inflation would be a better way to budget.
Thanks for this. I find myself in total agreement with the comments made here by Rob Murray, and echoed by Paul Mason previously in his Conflict & Democracy and New World posts. As a business person myself it drives me absolutely nuts to hear time and again that our Chancellor and Treasury believe that investment in a manifestly mission critical area like defence needs to be funded out of governmental 'cash flow'. Until Burnham or whoever challenges this crazy thinking we have no chance of generating an appropriate level of funding for our escalating defence needs. I hope and pray that the Council On Geostrategy is lobbying the key figures in HMG directly, quietly and in background to sort this.
Yes frankly we need to define the force structure we need to fulfil our responsibilities then fill that out as budgets allow rather than shoe horning force structure and procurement to fit an annual budget relying on the quality of people to make it work, realistically if we had 3.5% core funding we could fill out the forces especially the navy to healthy baseline, half the issue is it isnt at a size to allow a drumbeat of replacement rate building across the forces. The hybrid navy plan wont work and wont be cheaper and at the same time risks creating a feast and famine cycle which could end shipbuilding again especially with the competition for skilled shipbuilders by the usa, Australia and canada.
Almost all of it is well reasoned except I cannot fathom why Mike Martin wants to give up GCAP/Tempest. The UK should give up its aerospace industry? Abandon Japan and Italy? Discontinue what is likely to be its most successful defense export program? This is crazy. It’s Britain’s number two defense priority. He is right about the Royal Navy needing a lot more money.
That genuinely threw me GCAP is almost like the space race the technology and innovations that will flow out of it could affect everything from materials science to human performance, let alone the industrial and economic impact plus with the fall of Fcas it paints the uk as a serious and pragmatic partner to work when needs align.
Could not agree more; great way to describe it. Tempest will likely be the only 6th gen aircraft available to the West (or whatever it is now). The US is only building 185 NGAD fighters. This means they don’t intend to export it, not that there would be many interested buyers. Would we all really give up air superiority to just the US and China for the next 40 years?
Very true on the NGAD point! And even in the states where they can throw money at the problem 300mn a pop for an aircraft adds up quickly(plus boeings issues) it is already looking at being delayed, add in issues with workforce due to so many high level projects at once, they might end up looking at the overlap between the b21 and ngad and change tact especially with cca development and lockheed showing off concepts of a new f35 with longer range and payload.
I think the US will successfully juggle those existing programs, though there will be delays. Lockheed Martin is neck deep in the F-35 and 18 months behind schedule on block IV. Northrop Grumman is building the B-21 and Boeing the NGAD/F-47. Where I think they will fall down is the F/A-XX. Carrier aviation doesn’t seem to be a priority. The F/A-18 is long in the tooth and still only 3 of 11 carriers are certified for the F-35. I’m not sure any of the 3 primes have the spare talent and capacity for another large fighter program.
The US Navy is disintegrating before our eyes. I would not be surprised if the US suspended carrier production after the Kennedy and Enterprise are complete. There is no replacement for the Ticonderoga cruisers. We’re still building Arleigh Burke destroyers but they are at their design limits. We just scrapped the new frigate for Coast Guard patrol vessels. The littoral combat ships (corvettes) were a complete disaster with some being retired at just 8 years. There seems to be a focus on submarines but there has not been an expansion of the production lines. The idea of a new giant battleship is just silly. At this rate, the US navy will be a hollowed-out force in just a few decades and there’s no quick or easy fix.
True they will probably manage but yes faxx seems far off which maybe should of been the priority over ngad considering the b21 is doing well and on schedule and budget.
God where do you start with the us navy looks like more u turns to come if anyone has sense, probably stuck with 2 or 3 bbgx then have to pivot back to ddgx, the carrier issues keep piling up at least they have some lighting carriers up and running now, ddgx seems more like a tricondoroga replacement so maybe see a more high low fleet with a u turn on constellations plus some usv missile barges and cancel the ffx(which costs like 3.5bn some how for the first ship of a class already in production). The shipbuilding and especially sub builder workforce issue seems pretty bad alot of staff aging out while new workers quiting over poor conditions or pay.
Im a bit more hopeful of the RN even if they have gone drone mad the 1sl will be replaced soon and they will figure out a radar picket lusv wont work and isnt cheap and will pivot back to destoryers and the original fads idea with potential a few extra "ccv"(t32)frigates in the fleet, thankfully the t45s have a good bit life left in them.
I think for shipbuilding in general theres got to be some sort of push to drag back some commercial shipbuilding from china to shore up European and usa yards to help end the boom and bust and keep design houses hot to allow fleets to grow at speed again unfortunately that would still take a decade or 2 to do.
That’s an interesting thought about procurement. I would have assumed that an avionics and radar upgrade would be a good life extension for the F-22 which might have then prioritized F/A-XX. Maybe the F-22’s are experiencing unexpected engine or airframe stress.
The US Navy seems doomed. Instead of rebuilding old shipyards and training apprentices, the strategy seems to be outsourcing. I believe Babcock UK already has large signed orders for submarine components and there’s talk about Japan and South Korea building surface ships. I think America should’ve built a bunch of Canada’s River class frigates which are basically British type 26’s but with American weapons and radar.
I have a particular affinity for the Royal Navy so it’s been hard watching it wither. The new frigates look great but the industry needs an always-on build model. The boom and bust cycles are counterproductive and expensive. The hybrid Navy idea is interesting. I am all for distributed lethality but it’s not coming anytime soon. £1.5B is R&D money, not steel cutting money. The MRSS and Type 83 cancellations are painful and I fear there may be fewer than 12 AUKUS subs. I think there’s no getting around that the RN probably needs another £10-15B in funding over the next 4 years.
I’m not convinced we measure or define things properly. I agree with Michael, we need a fully defined force for both the current/immediate future as well as for the long term future defence. But also I feel we need to break away from percentage spending. Surely the defined need will stay the same regardless of how well or poorly our economy is performing and therefore a set figure that can rise with inflation would be a better way to budget.
Thanks for this. I find myself in total agreement with the comments made here by Rob Murray, and echoed by Paul Mason previously in his Conflict & Democracy and New World posts. As a business person myself it drives me absolutely nuts to hear time and again that our Chancellor and Treasury believe that investment in a manifestly mission critical area like defence needs to be funded out of governmental 'cash flow'. Until Burnham or whoever challenges this crazy thinking we have no chance of generating an appropriate level of funding for our escalating defence needs. I hope and pray that the Council On Geostrategy is lobbying the key figures in HMG directly, quietly and in background to sort this.
Yes frankly we need to define the force structure we need to fulfil our responsibilities then fill that out as budgets allow rather than shoe horning force structure and procurement to fit an annual budget relying on the quality of people to make it work, realistically if we had 3.5% core funding we could fill out the forces especially the navy to healthy baseline, half the issue is it isnt at a size to allow a drumbeat of replacement rate building across the forces. The hybrid navy plan wont work and wont be cheaper and at the same time risks creating a feast and famine cycle which could end shipbuilding again especially with the competition for skilled shipbuilders by the usa, Australia and canada.