Nice scoop by @larisamlbrown about making the new Royal Yacht (or whatever it's called now...) designated as a military/naval vessel, so it has to be built in the UK. However... let's look at why the RY is going to be designated as military: thetimes.co.uk/article/new-br…
It will have a mil-spec secure comms suite, of a standard that the vessel can be designated as military, avoiding the thorny issue of guns etc.
But let us now transfer this to Fleet Solid Support (FSS) ships. The following from a 2018 Industry Briefing day:
OK, so some things might have changed since 2018, but as can be seen from the following pic (sorry for low res), FSS is meant to have comms with all these other assets, one assumes in a secure manner, which would suggest that a mil spec still needed:
But a September Written Answer still suggests that elements (unknown quantities, overall) of FSS could be built overseas, as the RN/MoD still insists that FSS is not a warlike/military platform: questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questi…
Sooo... why is FSS, which is a far more warlike platform (it has CIWS, decoy launchers, armouring, a military radar, and will carry warlike helicopters) still NOT deemed warlike, with elements - major blocks? - built overseas, but the RY is, with a far more commercial standard?
Asking for a friend...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Slightly ashamed that I missed the publication of this: publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmse…
Important as the first sentence states:
"The Ministry of Defence (the Department) spent £4.6 billion on its estate in 2019–20, around twice the annual cost of maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent."
Anyone in any doubt as to the importance of this just needs to ponder the amount spent on the Defence Estate. And then to consider the rest of the report, cutting to the chase, as ever from @CommonsPAC.
Hearing that some alarm bells are starting to ring @BritishArmy that the ability to generate and declare a high readiness (Armd/Mech) brigade to NATO in 2024 is looking less likely.
Now, should it be "difficult" for a 75,000-person Army to train and equip "a mere" 5-6,000 unit?
Well, as regards personnel, there should be no problem whatsoever. But as regards equipment, there lies the rub... Look at it this way: 1. The UK can barely, and not sustainably, generate a single regiment of Challenger 2. 2. It is the same for AS90.
So, basically, the Taliban has a greater understanding, greater grasp and knowledge of so-called "Information Operations" than pretty much the entire UK MoD.
For those who think info ops are a real something, ponder this...
A theocratic insurgency has a greater understanding about giving as wide access to its message as it can, than a supposedly (wannabe) digital-savi western military.
Will anyone at the MoD learn? Simple answer? Not a bat in hell's chance.
"The Terms of Reference asked us to consider two questions, readiness of IOC and likely readiness for deployment of the Household Cavalry Regiment (HCR) in 2023."
"In terms of IOC, the Capability Drop 1 vehicles are in the hands of the Army in trials and with HCR. There remains significant concern both in relation to noise and vibration in the vehicles and the variation in levels of vibration across the fleet."
Another @BritishArmy AFV thought. I'm told that the process of buying a replacement for AS90 has kicked off. Now, the "favourite" at this stage seems to be the Hanwha K-9 - tracked.
But here's one thought: if Ajax does get canned, then the overwhelming number of AFVs that the Army will have will be wheeled. So, what are the issues of coherence of trying to mix-and-match wheels and tracks.
OK, it'll have to be rationalised for CR3/Boxer, c'est la vie. But what are the implications for Boxer Brigade Combat Teams if the main AFVs can move at 50mph down the motorways, but their artillery has to follow at 15mph on low loaders?