Britain to raise defence spending. Where should the money be spent?

[McRhu]

Much as I don't like the idea; tactical nuclear weapons. Firstly for deterrence from same and secondly to allow a proportionate* response if they were to be used against us. Also more Astute SSNs especially if US support cannot be relied upon.


*I know, I know....

 

[Yew]

Boots on the ground also essential to stop someone occupying your own territory.

Whilst that is true, there is a risk that we overvalue solutions that were correct for the Ukrainians, which are not the right choice for us. We are not a land power with a large border with a hostile state, our force design should match the challenges that we expect to face, and complement our allies, rather than matching their force composition.

Much as I don't like the idea; tactical nuclear weapons. Firstly for deterrence from same and secondly to allow a proportionate* response if they were to be used against us.

I'm leaning towards an independent nuclear missile too, as Trident does rely heavily on the US. A tactical option as a short-term stop-gap would complement this nicely.

Also more Astute SSNs especially if US support cannot be relied upon.

What did you have in mind to do with those?

 

[McRhu]

Whilst that is true, there is a risk that we overvalue solutions that were correct for the Ukrainians, which are not the right choice for us. We are not a land power with a large border with a hostile state, our force design should match the challenges that we expect to face, and complement our allies, rather than matching their force composition.


I'm leaning towards an independent nuclear missile too, as Trident does rely heavily on the US. A tactical option as a short-term stop-gap would complement this nicely.

What did you have in mind to do with those?

As per usual, hunt/detect Russian subs in the GIUK Gap and nearer to home, protect our SSBNs (of which 2 may well soon be on patrol at any one time I would imagine), launch Tomahawks (or home produced missiles) against land based targets in event of war, shoot enemy ships as required, protect offshore assets, insert UK and friendly SF if required. In short much of what they do just now, but my point being that if the USA should no longer be fulfilling at least the first of these roles on our behalf then we need more subs to fill the gap (pun half intended).

 

[Class 317]

In terms of all types of drones (air, sea , land), the Ukraine war is showing is it's not important to have thousands to start with but it is important to have the manufacturing capacity to build tens of thousands during a crisis. The technology is moving so fast if we had large stocks they would likely be obsolete before they could be used.

Equally air defence forces need to be bolstered both for land and sea use.

Also on terms of the less glamorous items insuring sufficient fuel stocks, ammunition spare parts etc is very important.

Numbers also need to climb but only once equipment is available.

 

[Yew]

As per usual, hunt/detect Russian subs in the GIUK Gap and nearer to home, protect our SSBNs (of which 2 may well soon be on patrol at any one time I would imagine), launch Tomahawks (or home produced missiles) against land based targets in event of war, shoot enemy ships as required, protect offshore assets, insert UK and friendly SF if required. In short much of what they do just now, but my point being that if the USA should no longer be fulfilling at least the first of these roles on our behalf then we need more subs to fill the gap (pun half intended).

Which of those roles couldn't be done by a surface based asset? All I can think of is "delousing" an SSBN, where an SSN rendezvous with an SSBN, and tries to get a trailling hostile sub to follow it or some super-sneaky special ops infil/exfiltration tasks. All the others could be done by Frigates or Destroyers, which are simpler to scale up production for.

 

[McRhu]

Which of those roles couldn't be done by a surface based asset? All I can think of is "delousing" an SSBN, where an SSN rendezvous with an SSBN, and tries to get a trailling hostile sub to follow it or some super-sneaky special ops infil/exfiltration tasks. All the others could be done by Frigates or Destroyers, which are simpler to scale up production for.

It comes down to the fact that SSNs (or smaller SSKs) have the advantage of stealth and thus being able to lurk, hunt or launch attacks undetected. Think of the American SSGN conversions which are massive cruise missile platforms and the Block V Virginias which put great emphasis on this advantage over surface vessels. Also, there's nothing like a sub for detecting and tracking a sub (or so I was always led to believe), sneaking up on a carrier group, or for operating under the polar ice caps where hostile SSBNs may lurk. The threat that an SSN may be present can also be a game changer in the event of hostilities. Think of how many SSNs we used to operate at any one time. Churchill/Valiant class alongside Swiftsure; Swiftsure alongside Trafalgar; Astute alongside...? We'll have 7 SSNs once the current build is eventually finished and there'll be a long delay before the next SSN Class gets wet (scheduled for late 2030s?). In fact I wonder if AUKAS is still a goer? I agree though that scaling up production isn't easy with only one shipyard which is now gearing upm for Dreadnought. But there we are - my contention is that SSNs fulfil an essential role that surface vessels can't and I rest my case m'lud.

 

[Cloud Strife]

There is one area that I'd like to see money spent on: territorial defence.

The big problem with reserve services in the eyes of many people is that it's simply too much of a commitment. We need a much more flexible approach towards being in the reserves, as it currently requires a 15 day residential camp that will simply deter many good people. The more sensible approach would be to allow people to do everything during weekends and without requiring a residential stay.

For instance, while I don't live in the UK anymore, I wouldn't sign up because I simply don't want to spend two weeks in barracks being treated like an imbecile on very little sleep. I have no desire to trudge across fields or to be woken up at 6am by some instructor yelling at me to get outside, nor do I want to be given five minutes in the morning to get everything done in the bathroom. It's not my scene, yet I have quite a few useful skills that the Army could use. It's their loss.

 

[GusB]

There is one area that I'd like to see money spent on: territorial defence.

The big problem with reserve services in the eyes of many people is that it's simply too much of a commitment. We need a much more flexible approach towards being in the reserves, as it currently requires a 15 day residential camp that will simply deter many good people. The more sensible approach would be to allow people to do everything during weekends and without requiring a residential stay.

For instance, while I don't live in the UK anymore, I wouldn't sign up because I simply don't want to spend two weeks in barracks being treated like an imbecile on very little sleep. I have no desire to trudge across fields or to be woken up at 6am by some instructor yelling at me to get outside, nor do I want to be given five minutes in the morning to get everything done in the bathroom. It's not my scene, yet I have quite a few useful skills that the Army could use. It's their loss.

Funnily enough I noted an advert on YouTube yesterday advertising part-time roles with one of the armed services - I think it might have been the RAF, but I wasn't paying too much attention.

One of the issues with employing reservists is that companies increasingly expect their staff to be available over a full work week, regardless of how many hours they're actually contracted for. One of the employers I worked for expected me to be available between 8am and 8pm for 7 days a week, despite the fact that I was only contracted for 25 hours. It was more or less impossible to do a second job to make ends meet, let alone commit to being a reservist. People simply cannot commit to extra-work activities because they don't know what shifts they'll be working in a fortnight's time and cannot make concrete plans.

I agree that we need a more flexible approach, but that has to come from the government and employers alike.

 

[AlterEgo]

For instance, while I don't live in the UK anymore, I wouldn't sign up because I simply don't want to spend two weeks in barracks being treated like an imbecile on very little sleep. I have no desire to trudge across fields or to be woken up at 6am by some instructor yelling at me to get outside, nor do I want to be given five minutes in the morning to get everything done in the bathroom. It's not my scene, yet I have quite a few useful skills that the Army could use. It's their loss.

Quite. I'm too medically incompetent to join any of HM Forces as a reservist, but I have useful skills which don't involve - as you say - being treated like an idiot for two weeks. There is almost no circumstance where I would need to yomp for ten miles with a rifle and bergen with the skills I have, but joining the reserve forces means this is basically what you'll be expected to do. I cannot do it with my knees, but I can sit behind a desk and I have excellent pattern and image recognition skills.

 

[GusB]

Quite. I'm too medically incompetent to join any of HM Forces as a reservist, but I have useful skills which don't involve - as you say - being treated like an idiot for two weeks. There is almost no circumstance where I would need to yomp for ten miles with a rifle and bergen with the skills I have, but joining the reserve forces means this is basically what you'll be expected to do. I cannot do it with my knees, but I can sit behind a desk and I have excellent pattern and image recognition skills.

I probably would have spectacularly failed an army medical when I was 18. I'm not likely to pass it now at 50!

The issue with the armed forces at the moment is that everyone has to pass "basic training" and someone who isn't deemed to be physically fit enough is rejected. It's rather ironic that the DWP tries to focus on what you can do rather than what you can't in order to force people into work, yet people who are mentally sharp enough but physically unable are excluded from the military.

 

[Gaz67]

Whilst that is true, there is a risk that we overvalue solutions that were correct for the Ukrainians, which areWhilst that is true, there is a risk that we overvalue solutions that were correct for the Ukrainians, which are not the right choice for us. We are not a land power with a large border with a hostile state, our force design should match the challenges that we expect to face, and complement our allies, rather than matching their force composition.


I'm leaning towards an independent nuclear missile too, as Trident does rely heavily on the US. A tactical option as a short-term stop-gap would complement this nicely.

What did you have in mind to do with those?

We are not looking at this from our perspective, if a plan exists for defending the UK it probably involves sailing several 74s into the channel, hastily crossed out with stand up as many squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes as possible. All this talk about cyber, drones and satellites is also deflecting from the main issue. These are simply battlefield tools used by boots on the ground. It looks like Starmer is the man ( strange turn of events) and he has to somehow get the European branch of Nato to take the strain. The only way to defend Natos borders be it in the Baltics or at sea and in the air is with superior Artillary, tanks, troops , fighters and Naval assets. 0.2 of GDP doesn't come close.

 

[edwin_m]

We are not looking at this from our perspective, if a plan exists for defending the UK it probably involves sailing several 74s into the channel, hastily crossed out with stand up as many squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes as possible. All this talk about cyber, drones and satellites is also deflecting from the main issue. These are simply battlefield tools used by boots on the ground. It looks like Starmer is the man ( strange turn of events) and he has to somehow get the European branch of Nato to take the strain. The only way to defend Natos borders be it in the Baltics or at sea and in the air is with superior Artillary, tanks, troops , fighters and Naval assets. 0.2 of GDP doesn't come close.

The video I linked above suggests that 2% (which is the actual target not 0.2% or 0.2=20%), even without the USA, actually amounts to a lot of money relative to Russia's defence spending. If everyone commits to that, then the problem won't be the total available, it will be spending it wisely and quickly to plug the gaps, whether existing previously or created by the potential departure of the USA from the pitch.

 

[DarloRich]

Quite. I'm too medically incompetent to join any of HM Forces as a reservist, but I have useful skills which don't involve - as you say - being treated like an idiot for two weeks. There is almost no circumstance where I would need to yomp for ten miles with a rifle and bergen with the skills I have, but joining the reserve forces means this is basically what you'll be expected to do. I cannot do it with my knees, but I can sit behind a desk and I have excellent pattern and image recognition skills.

The issue with the armed forces at the moment is that everyone has to pass "basic training" and someone who isn't deemed to be physically fit enough is rejected.

The big problem with reserve services in the eyes of many people is that it's simply too much of a commitment. We need a much more flexible approach towards being in the reserves, as it currently requires a 15 day residential camp that will simply deter many good people. The more sensible approach would be to allow people to do everything during weekends and without requiring a residential stay.

For instance, while I don't live in the UK anymore, I wouldn't sign up because I simply don't want to spend two weeks in barracks being treated like an imbecile on very little sleep. I have no desire to trudge across fields or to be woken up at 6am by some instructor yelling at me to get outside, nor do I want to be given five minutes in the morning to get everything done in the bathroom. It's not my scene, yet I have quite a few useful skills that the Army could use. It's their loss.

But you would still be a soldier/sailor or airman and that means being fit enough to fight, be able and proficient enough to use your gun when needed to, do what you are told to when told to do it by someone with more braid than you and buy into the esprit de corps of the unit.

That is not to say we cant/shouldn't change the system but there has to realism on both sides. You have to meet a level of fitness/eyesight/health etc to be in the forces and if you decide to join you have to follow thier rules. You cant pick and choose what you like and what you don't like. You also have to be ready to deploy with your colleagues and to do that you need to train together and work together on a long term basis so you know each other and how each other behaves.

All the others could be done by Frigates or Destroyers, which are simpler to scale up production for.

they are also easier to see and thus destroy.

 

[AlterEgo]

But you would still be a soldier/sailor or airman and that means being fit enough to fight, be able and proficient enough to use your gun when needed to

In the context of there being not, in fact, enough volunteers, relentless missed recruitment targets, and a great many people invalided from service for whatever reason - why?

 

[lyndhurst25]

Those 4 new ballistic missile submarines being built in Barrow - I’d be getting the tape measure out to see if they could be modified to carry French missiles, rather than Tridents from the now untrustworthy USA. The French were smart to develop a truly independent nuclear deterrent, whereas Britain has been reliant on US technology since the 1960s. Time for Britain to go it alone, or in collaboration with friendly European neighbours.

 

[DarloRich]

In the context of there being not, in fact, enough volunteers, relentless missed recruitment targets, and a great many people invalided from service for whatever reason - why?

ok - who is going to look after you when your base where you have your office is attacked?

 

[AlterEgo]

ok - who is going to look after you when your base where you have your office is attacked?

Is this a question to be asked of the civilian staff on military bases as well, many of whom are performing functions that used to be done by gun-carrying soldiers?

 

[Cloud Strife]

Quite. I'm too medically incompetent to join any of HM Forces as a reservist, but I have useful skills which don't involve - as you say - being treated like an idiot for two weeks. There is almost no circumstance where I would need to yomp for ten miles with a rifle and bergen with the skills I have, but joining the reserve forces means this is basically what you'll be expected to do. I cannot do it with my knees, but I can sit behind a desk and I have excellent pattern and image recognition skills.

It is incredibly short sighted, I think. There is absolutely no reason why the reserves can't adapt to the people on offer: for instance, a friend retired in his 50s with a handsome amount of money in his pocket from selling his IT company. He approached the Army, saying that his knowledge and skills could come in very useful in terms of cyberwarfare. The recruiter threw his hands up and said that while they desperately needed people like him, the rules prevented it.

This was a bloke who literally needed nothing more than a desk with a computer, who had a huge amount of real world experience and who was quite happy to put in two/three days a week to do his bit for his country. He could contract his services out for a huge amount of cash in the private sector, but he wanted to get involved with army life. Did he need to be able to trudge across a field with a bergen and a rifle? Absolutely not.

The same story repeats itself time and time again.

The issue with the armed forces at the moment is that everyone has to pass "basic training" and someone who isn't deemed to be physically fit enough is rejected. It's rather ironic that the DWP tries to focus on what you can do rather than what you can't in order to force people into work, yet people who are mentally sharp enough but physically unable are excluded from the military.

It's just absolutely ridiculous. There are so many positions in the military that simply don't require physical fitness, because they will never see a battlefield. They can be taught basic skills such as how to shoot and so on without needing to commit to a two week course where they get treated like any other soldier.

I'm thinking about my own situation - I have language skills, I have IT skills, I have a fairly decent grasp of international politics and I'd probably be fairly useful in quite a few roles. Yet I have no desire whatever to be shouted at for two weeks by some career soldier who thinks that I need to suffer in the cold, to be physically in pain and to go without sleep in uncomfortable barracks while having to make my bed perfectly.

@DarloRich I don't mind weapons training, I don't mind some physical training, but I have no desire whatever to spend two weeks in a residential camp. It's not my scene, and if the military wants to use my knowledge, they also need to adapt.

For what it's worth, I believe that for the reserves, some positions such as doctors or pharmacists don't have to do the field training. So, why not expand it so that the military can take advantage of some very highly skilled people?

 

[DarloRich]

Is this a question to be asked of the civilian staff on military bases as well, many of whom are performing functions that used to be done by gun-carrying soldiers?

they are not soldiers. Surely that is obvious.

For what it's worth, I believe that for the reserves, some positions such as doctors or pharmacists don't have to do the field training. So, why not expand it so that the military can take advantage of some very highly skilled people?

from what I understand they ( and other "professional services types") DO have to do some basic field training to qualify. I understand it is a shorter course than for a "normal" soldier but covers military basics.

It's just absolutely ridiculous. There are so many positions in the military that simply don't require physical fitness, because they will never see a battlefield.

but you might! I have a uni friend who was in the Army Legal Service. He is a lawyer. He deployed to Iraqi and had to have refresher weapons trains just in case ( he also had fitness requirements to meet)

but I have no desire whatever to spend two weeks in a residential camp. It's not my scene, and if the military wants to use my knowledge, they also need to adapt.

so when you are deployed to some war zone then what? They wont be putting you up in the Hilton. This isn't the air force!

 

[AlterEgo]

they are not soldiers. Surely that is obvious.

But those trades used to be. Why now, is the catering run by civilians on many bases, when it used to be done by soldiers? At some point the powers that be decided there was no need for those people to be people they wasted time on giving field training to - even to the point they aren't soldiers. to go back to your point "who protects the base your office is on" - well, who protects the civilian catering staff?

Not all servicepeople have to meet the same medical standards either. It varies by trade, and one can quickly become medically non-deployable. A friend is a reservist; they are 50, have diabetes, are obese, and are not deployable. Anywhere. Yet the Navy keeps them on for their vital skills. Why not take people on who are not deployable? Much work now in the Forces is office based or even in some cases remotely done.

The Forces are turning people away who are being met by barriers to serving and there isn't a compelling reason for many of those barriers.

 

[DarloRich]

But those trades used to be. Why now, is the catering run by civilians on many bases, when it used to be done by soldiers? At some point the powers that be decided there was no need for those people to be people they wasted time on giving field training to - even to the point they aren't soldiers. to go back to your point "who protects the base your office is on" -

So what is your argument?

well, who protects the civilian catering staff?

You hide under the table and wait for the people with guns to sort it out - obviously surely?

Why not take people on who are not deployable?

surely they WERE deployable when they were recruited though.

The Forces are turning people away who are being met by barriers to serving and there isn't a compelling reason for many of those barriers.

No - they are turning away people who don't meet thier standards. Is your argument that:

there should be lower/multiple armed forces standards on recruitment or they should be taken on as civilian contractors

EDIT - I wouldn't disagree with taking on more civilian contractors to do work in the UK to release forces people for more front line adjacent work. I think, though, that if you want to wear the uniform that means being fit enough to fight, be able and proficient enough to use your gun when needed to, do what you are told to when told to do it by someone with more braid than you and buy into the esprit de corps of the unit.

That doesn't mean run a marathon in 27 minutes it means reach basic fitness standards so that if the excrement hits the fan you aren't a liability and thus an expensive casualty. It doesn't mean hitting a bulls eye from 4000 yards with a Walther PPK but it does mean being able to use basic weapons to a basic standard to defend yourself and others if required. It also means being able to march a bit, follow commands and do the boring stuff required to build spirit in a team.

 

[AlterEgo]

So what is your argument?

The argument is that it is not necessary for every military trade to be field trained or being beasted for weeks. In many cases, trades have become civilianised. Why then, do we insist on every single military trade being totally deployable at the point of entry, able to handle weapons, do cam/concealment etc? Why does someone working in image intelligence need to do this? They work in a bunker for nearly their whole time, or remotely.

You hide under the table and wait for the people with guns to sort it out - obviously surely?

Of course, so not everyone on the base needs to have a gun - in fact, in practice, hardly anyone does. Go to RAF Wyton and there are less than a dozen people with rifles at any one time.

surely they WERE deployable when they were recruited though.

They were, and are not now - but the Navy still gets full value from their skills. So what is the point of having everyone be deployable? Why is there the resistance to taking on people to backfill *loads* of vacancies in this climate by having all these barriers? I am banned from serving owing to a health episode which happened 17 years ago, as are a great many other people. If that issue had occurred in service, and I had joined at 18, I would still be in the forces now.

No - they are turning away people who don't meet thier standards. Is your argument that:

there should be lower/multiple armed forces standards on recruitment or they should be taken on as civilian contractors

The former but the latter might also be an idea, or having some functions be done by other agencies which are civilianised. Some jobs cannot be done by civilians because they require military discipline and the very highest levels of clearance.

 

[Gaz67]

The video I linked above suggests that 2% (which is the actual target not 0.2% or 0.2=20%), even without the USA, actually amounts to a lot of money relative to Russia's defence spending. If everyone commits to that, then the problem won't be the total available, it will be spending it wisely and quickly to plug the gaps, whether existing previously or created by the potential departure of the USA from the pitch.

Yes sorry I should of clarified, I meant the proposed increase from 2.3 to 2.5% by 2027 not being nearly enough.

 

[Cloud Strife]

from what I understand they ( and other "professional services types") DO have to do some basic field training to qualify. I understand it is a shorter course than for a "normal" soldier but covers military basics.

Yeah, from what I've pieced together, they don't have the "two weeks being shouted at to make your bed in a perfect way" training, but they have the weekend training that all the reservists have. It seems that they also accept older people too, up to 49, although I really wonder why they couldn't raise that to cater for those who take early retirement and yet are still perfectly fit to work in the reserves, working with (for example) people who come back injured from tours.

but you might! I have a uni friend who was in the Army Legal Service. He is a lawyer. He deployed to Iraqi and had to have refresher weapons trains just in case ( he also had fitness requirements to meet)

I think some basic training is quite acceptable, like every reservist should be able to maintain and fire their rifles, and it wouldn't hurt to teach them things like first aid too. But I just don't see the value in sending them off to boot camp for two weeks, because tramping across fields for hours on end is not really an important skill for a reservist in many non-combat positions. Of course, if you want to drive tanks and so on, then it's a different story.

so when you are deployed to some war zone then what? They wont be putting you up in the Hilton. This isn't the air force!

This is the point I think: we should be thinking about whether we really need to deploy some positions. An intelligence officer in the Army doesn't need to be able to trudge through fields at 6am, but a lot of what they do can be done from a desk here. Of course, if they want to be deployed, then it's obvious that they need to do the two week boot camp. But we shouldn't be ruling out some frankly talented people just because they can't or won't haul a heavy bergen across some fields.

EDIT - I wouldn't disagree with taking on more civilian contractors to do work in the UK to release forces people for more front line adjacent work. I think, though, that if you want to wear the uniform that means being fit enough to fight, be able and proficient enough to use your gun when needed to, do what you are told to when told to do it by someone with more braid than you and buy into the esprit de corps of the unit.

The problem are the defence clearances: you won't get them as a civilian, so there's a need to have them in the army command to do that.

I think ultimately, it would make sense to create a Civil Guard of sorts: they aren't deployable, but the option would be there for someone to complete either the officer reserve training at Sandhurst or the soldier boot camp, which would move them into the reserve category and therefore make them deployable. The Civil Guard would have the same status, and they would still be required to train in a wide range of skills that would come in useful for territorial defence purposes like being trained in a range of firearms, explosives, medicine, etc, but they would be exempt from the "hauling a bergen across a field" part.

You could then open up the Civil Guard to literally anyone who wants it over the age of 16. If you've retired in your mid 60s, you've got plenty of life and energy in you, and you want to contribute something, then the door would be open to serve in the Civil Guard within the military structures.

One other thing: the current situation also effectively rules out many people who could make excellent reservists. For instance, someone who has had a degree in nursing, has three kids, works full time and has now reached her late 30s won't be able and won't want to commit to two weeks crawling around the mud. She can give up an evening a week and perhaps a day at the weekend, she can work in UK DCMHs, so why do we insist that she completes a two week boot camp just to work there?

Of course, she should have training in using a rifle, in some basic drill, etc, but there is absolutely no benefit to making her deployable when it's obvious that she won't sign up for exactly that reason. Yet, if she joins up, enjoys it and wants to become deployable, then the option should always be there to complete the boot camp.

 

[Yew]

It comes down to the fact that SSNs (or smaller SSKs) have the advantage of stealth and thus being able to lurk, hunt or launch attacks undetected.

Yes, I agree that submarines are useful, but they can be detected, particularly when close to hostile shores

Think of the American SSGN conversions which are massive cruise missile platforms and the Block V Virginias which put great emphasis on this advantage over surface vessels.

Indeed, they are a useful asset, but a SSGN chocked full of tomahawks is a very expensive way to bomb somewhere.

Also, there's nothing like a sub for detecting and tracking a sub (or so I was always led to believe),

Certainly they can be useful for detecting submarines, but by no means the only way. It's worth remembering that the majority of Submarine Kills in history are not in submarine-on-submarine combat - and modern inventions like sonarbuoys, towed array sonar etc have added more options to the field of anti-submarine warfare.

sneaking up on a carrier group, or for operating under the polar ice caps where hostile SSBNs may lurk.

That feels like a very cold-war mindset.

The threat that an SSN may be present can also be a game changer in the event of hostilities.

Perhaps, but on the other hand, you can't do a presence mission with a submarine.

Think of how many SSNs we used to operate at any one time. Churchill/Valiant class alongside Swiftsure; Swiftsure alongside Trafalgar; Astute alongside...?

Typically For Astute and Trafalgar, whilst the classes have operated alongside each other, it's probably more accurate to think of those as a handover, as the Astutes come online, as opposed to a significant period of concurrent operation.

I agree though that scaling up production isn't easy with only one shipyard which is now gearing upm for Dreadnought. But there we are - my contention is that SSNs fulfil an essential role that surface vessels can't and I rest my case m'lud.

That's largely the point I'm making, we don't have the shipyards or reactor production facilities to dramatically increase the submarine programme. The Vanguards are due replacement, and it can't really be put off. Whereas we can easily build more surface vessels, indeed we have previously used many vessels built to normal civilian standards as a quick-build stopgap, for example HMS Ocean.

they are also easier to see and thus destroy.

But much easier to scale up production of and can contribute to more roles. Scaling up production of nuclear submarines is a very complex task when compared to scaling up surface vessels.

The problem are the defence clearances: you won't get them as a civilian, so there's a need to have them in the army command to do that.

I'm not certain that is true in the UK, it is perfectly possible to undergo Developed Vetting as a civilian.

 

[Gloster]

There is one slight problem: we don’t have any diesel boats since we sold the Upholders. Nuclear submarines are quiet, very quiet, but not totally quiet as the nuclear plant unavoidably makes some noises: diesel boats can go dead quiet. We made a serious misjudgement in staking everything on nuclear, but we were more interested in showing that we were one of the big boys than having a balanced fleet.

 

[DarloRich]

Yeah, from what I've pieced together, they don't have the "two weeks being shouted at to make your bed in a perfect way" training, but they have the weekend training that all the reservists have.

If you join the forces in a professional capacity ( lawyer, doctor etc) you pass the basic medical then do an 8 week short officers course at Sandhurst. That is basic military skills, leadership and discipline. You then do "trade" specific training.

( i checked with a colleague who is ex forces)

I think some basic training is quite acceptable, like every reservist should be able to maintain and fire their rifles, and it wouldn't hurt to teach them things like first aid too. But I just don't see the value in sending them off to boot camp for two weeks, because tramping across fields for hours on end is not really an important skill for a reservist in many non-combat positions.

because that is about, bluntly, forcing people into the Army mould of doing things like following orders!

But much easier to scale up production of and can contribute to more roles. Scaling up production of nuclear submarines is a very complex task when compared to scaling up surface vessels.

Agreed but we will need both