Forum menu
There was a article not long ago that suggested a US general had expressed the opinion that the UK armed forces could not protect the UK for more than a few weeks
From whom?
Yes, but how many days supply of aircraft did the Warsaw Pact have? Point is that WW3 would not have been like WW2. NATO just had to make it obvious that a Warsaw Pact attack would suffer huge losses and would probably escalate to a nuclear conflict. A conventional war that dragged on for years wasn’t what they were planning for.
Absolutely - my post wasn't a dig at anyone in this thread or the government of the day for that matter.
From whom?
Any nation with the ability to mount a serious threat. I mean that is job item no. 1 on the PM's do-to list. I should think (hope) that there are analysts and members of the armed forces doing those calculations daily.
If you're going to say, there really isn't anyone who can do that, and why would they. This the same thing that Ukraine and members of the former soviet socialist republics were saying last year. It's the reason that Finland has just become the latest NATO member, and Sweden is going to be next, and it's the same things they said after Princip did his work, and when Chamberlain came back from Munich.
It's a sad truth that we remain safe becasue we remain armed to the teeth.
"Ben Wallace, the UK’s defence minister, has said western countries would struggle to wage a protracted war comparable to Russia’s assault on Ukraine as their ammunition stocks “are inadequate for the threats we face”. During a simulated war game last year, the UK’s ammunition ran out after eight days." www.ft.com July 2022
The UK isn't either NATO or Russia, but it isn't a positive thought.
The UK's defence budget tends to be swallowed in bottomless acquisition, "Within the context of a constrained overall budget, the cost estimates used by the Department in the preparatory stages of programmes are often understated, causing budget pressures once more mature estimates show programmes will exceed their allocated budgets"
The need for aircraft carriers has been debated and the original Blair-government proposal in 1998 was “two 40,000 ton aircraft carriers, with a complement of up to 50 aircraft and helicopters each. The first will have an in-service date of 2012”.
Various changes were made, catapults were proposed and cancelled and the Queen Elizabeth-class ended up at 65000 tonnes. The full story is here... https://www.navylookout.com/development-of-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-a-design-history/
Britain has traditionally been a country that likes to stick its oar into a whole variety of international situations and often that means sending the armed forces into some tense situation. Aircraft carriers are quite a useful asset for armed forces with an expeditionary role to have.
This does not necessarily mean I support Britain so often having the attitude that it should get involved militarily as much as it does. I am however more of the opinion that we've tried to be an expeditionary power on the cheap for far too long and some day we should really have a proper national conversation about whether we want to accept a scaled back role on the world stage or fund our military more appropriately for the tasks we expect it to perform.
As for the comments about 2 or 3 aircraft carriers and how our two stack up against the Admiral Kuznetsov, especially given that one is currently not able to sail, I'll once again trot out the thing I recall reading a long time ago...
Navies operate in a very hostile environment. The sea is not a great place for technology to be and aircraft carriers are full of technology. The traditional wisdom is that in order to have 1 aircraft carrier deployed or ready for deployment at any given time you actually need 3 of them. That allows 1 to be in use while another is getting refit/repaired with the 3rd being devoted to training pilots to carry out the very difficult task of flying from aircraft carriers.
The UK discovered with its Illustrious class that operating STOVL aircraft from carriers is much easier for the pilots than operating traditional cat and trap aircraft from them. Getting a Harrier pilot ready for operating from a carrier only required a fairly short conversion course and importantly didn't require that much practice flying from a real aircraft carrier. Therefore the UK could buy two Queen Elizabeth carriers and still meet its goal of having one ready at any time. This is also (one of the reasons) why David Cameron's prevarications about fitting catapults to the Queen Elizabeth was a bit of a strange thing, as we'd then effectively be one carrier short.
Therefore it's not surprising that currently only one of the two Queen Elizabeth carriers is ready for action. But it's also (one of the reasons) why the Admiral Kusnetzov has spent quite a lot of its life not being very seaworthy and is currently undergoing a refit that started in 2017 and is not scheduled to complete until 2024.
But that's not particularly relevant to the war in Ukraine.
“Ben Wallace, the UK’s defence minister, has said western countries would struggle to wage a protracted war comparable to Russia’s assault on Ukraine as their ammunition stocks “are inadequate for the threats we face”. During a simulated war game last year, the UK’s ammunition ran out after eight days.” http://www.ft.com July 2022
The UK isn’t either NATO or Russia, but it isn’t a positive thought.The UK’s defence budget tends to be swallowed in bottomless acquisition, “Within the context of a constrained overall budget, the cost estimates used by the Department in the preparatory stages of programmes are often understated, causing budget pressures once more mature estimates show programmes will exceed their allocated budgets”
/blockquote>
Ammunition has a life, if we buy enough to support potential conflicts then we'd be throwing away hundreds of millions every year, and it would be on the front page of the daily mail.
What is needed is the ability to produce, or rapidly procure ammunition to support potential conflicts, again that's expensive, you're paying companies to have the facilities in place, but not to utilise them unless needed.
Or you will be buying it on the open market from places in potentially disreputable places and could get hit by punitive prices increases.
A long time ago, in a previous life, I used to visit DSEI. The place had a lot of people advertising small arms ammunition for sale and a fair few were in places that you might not want to consider buying from if you wanted quality, or ethical production. They were also at the end of a long logistical chain, so you would be at the whim of a shipping company, or any border official that fancied being a dick.
Ammunition is heavy. Flying it from source to point of use is expensive.... Remember what used to happen to transport from ****stan to AFG when there was a war on?
Ammunition has a life?
Then why can I use ammunition from 1957 in my Lee Enfield with no problems?
Do you care if it works 100% of the time? Does it matter if there is a minimum limit for how may misfires you have?
I know someone who used to design de manufacturing machinery for naval shells.
So yes, ammunition definitely has a use by date.
Then why can I use ammunition from 1957 in my Lee Enfield with no problems?
Apart from being fitted with corrosive mercuric primers which will damage your bore if you don't clean it straight away? And using berdan primers which make the cases near impossible to reuse? Cordite or other obsolete propellant which is much more prone to chemical breakdown than modern propellants? An increased likelihood of misfires - not an issue on a gallery range, but can be if the targets are shooting back! It may well still fire, but velocities will be down from original spec and subject to much wider variations. The metallurgy of cartridge case brass of that vintage can be dodgy too - cases become brittle and more prone to neck splits and even case head separation.
I shoot a Lee Enfield too. I want to look after it and keep all my fingers, so I handload my ammo or buy modern manufactured stuff such as Privi. Surplus vintage ammo goes bang, most of the time which IME is about all you can say about it.
I used to test and proof UK military ammunition for a living (not just small arms ammo, bigger stuff too). It does degrade in storage, particularly if it's travelled around a lot and been subject to temperature cycling. However well it's made, propellants contain tiny residual amounts of acid from the manufacturing process. It may well be fine for years, decades even, but eventually it will break down chemically. Not usually to the point where it becomes unsafe (though that is possible), but to the point where performance and reliability suffer. In the UK military, samples of ammo approved for operational use are routinely selected at random from stock for proof testing. If this goes well, shelf life can be extended, If not it is either downgraded for training use only or marked for disposal.
I understood one of the reasons we gave Ukraine 4,000 NLAW anti-tank missiles was because they had reached end of operational shelf life so had to used or disposed of?
I used to test and proof UK military ammunition for a living (not just small arms ammo, bigger stuff too)
Which is why ladies and gentlemen, we love this place so much!
I understood one of the reasons we gave Ukraine 4,000 NLAW anti-tank missiles was because they had reached end of operational shelf life so had to used or disposed of?
Dunno as I am no longer current (by a couple of decades), but it seems feasible.
Ammunition has a life?
Then why can I use ammunition from 1957 in my Lee Enfield with no problems?
Well, yes, there are several youtube videos of old rounds (mostly american, quel suprise) failing to fire at best, and at worst, the gun explodes in your face and you end up with a fractured face and a hudge dentistry bill.
I think in the USA they call them 'hot rounds' as in powerfull but not reliable.
I'm way out of my sphere of knowledge and/or experience with this matter, I'm very grateful for the lesson - thanks all.
What is needed is the ability to produce, or rapidly procure ammunition to support potential conflicts, again that’s expensive, you’re paying companies to have the facilities in place, but not to utilise them unless needed.
+1
This war and the resourcefulness of Ukrainians will cause many to focus on the problem
There are reports of NATO missiles being adapted for Soviet launching systems, drones to direct ammunition effectively, the SAAB-Boeing GLSDB to mate existing large stocks of bombs and rocket motors into a different usable munition.
These sorts of ideas can easily be developed so that existing munitions companies have work while core production is at idle
My favourite adaptation is the drone carrying an RPG round. Genius!
The use of drones in this war is causing an awful lot of angst for military planners around the world. They are a cheap and effective force multiplier accessible to smaller militaries or insurgents, that can carry out tasks previously only done by extremely costly smart munitions and other technology. It's going to turn a lot of military doctrine on its head.
Not completely new, they've been used by ISIS and others, but Ukrainian ingenuity and resourcefulness have taken it to a new level. Even things like artillery locating radar can be mimicked to a degree by a cheap drones and observers. Mullti million dollar stuff like air defence systems, satellite comms vehicles, parked aircraft can now be taken out by a few hundred dollars worth of kit. This isn't even high tech swarming drones etc. that many armies are developing, it's cheap COTS kit that anyone can buy.
A lot of head scratching over countermeasures and revised doctrine going on. I'm just glad it was the Russians who had to learn those hard lesson first.
marked for disposal.
I seem to recall there was a big bullet-proof oven at Camp Bastion where they used to cook-off small arms rounds that were 'out-of-date'.
Having said that I once fired a WW1 Lewis gun and I'm pretty sure the ammo was of a similar vintage...........
I seem to recall there was a big bullet-proof oven at Camp Bastion where they used to cook-off small arms rounds that were ‘out-of-date
Yep. Gas fired incinerator. Small arms ammo is actually very difficult to get rid of. High explosive filled ammo like grenades, mortar bombs artillery ammo is easy to destroy in explosive demolitions. Dig a pit, layer the U/S ammo correctly, place donor charges of PE4, PE6, C4 or your angry putty of choice. Cover with sandbags to catch the frag and whack. If you do that with small arms ammo you just end up scattering it all over the place. When I first joined, we used to deep sea dump a lot of U/S ammo. Thankfully, that is no longer allowed.
I don't know this first-hand, but I understood from someone in the supply chain that older munitions were either fire for practice, or test-fired to see if the bang-percentage met the spec and the batch could have it dates extended. Is this not always the case?
We carried IR flares for defensive counter measures on my herc in the gulf. Their shelf life out there in the heat wasn’t long. When time-expired, the armorers would request we fired them all off as disposal was a nightmare! A c130 emptying its flare bins is quite a sight! We always tried to have a wingman nearby for photos..
I don’t know this first-hand, but I understood from someone in the supply chain that older munitions were either fire for practice, or test-fired to see if the bang-percentage met the spec and the batch could have it dates extended. Is this not always the case?
See my post above
In the UK military, samples of ammo approved for operational use are routinely selected at random from stock for proof testing. If this goes well, shelf life can be extended, If not it is either downgraded for training use only or marked for disposal.
An interesting UK government document backing up everything said above. Section 13 covers shelf life of gun propellants based on temperature. TLDR - ammunition can last a relatively long time if kept in a temperate climate but degrades rapidly at high temperatures. Along time does not mean since 1957, it means 15-25 years.
The problem with not having stockpiles but trying to ramp up manufacturing quickly is that it's hard. There's the capital cost of the machinery being under used. Even with automation you're going to have to hire and train more people. Then there's supply chain - can every part of the shell be procured rapidly including fuses?
Increasing the size of stockpiles is the only way to go. It may be possible to stockpile cases but you need the capacity to fill them very rapidly so there's still and argument for stockpiling complete shells.
When I was training to be an ammunition technician at one of the army apprentice colleges in the early 1980s, we did a tour of all the Royal Ordnance Factories. ROFs Chorley, Bishopton, Bridgewater, Radway Green, Bishopton, Glascoed and a load more I forget. These were government owned factories which made explosives or filled them into munitions. They had excess capacity and lines that could be ramped up or mothballed as required. They didn't have to turn a profit, though some did. They were backed up by a healthy private sector such as Nobel's Explosive Company which was part of ICI.
All were privatised and flogged cheaply to BaE systems or (in the case of private industry) went out of business due to lack of government contracts. Many are now closed. As a nation we no longer have the strategic capability to manufacture propellants or military high explosives at scale. ROF Bridgewater used to manufacture RDX high explosive, Bishopton propellant etc. All now closed. The facilities (such as Radway Green) which still fill or assemble ammunition have to buy the explosives from France, Sweden etc. because we as a nation no longer think it's important to maintain that strategic capability.
The ROFs fed a network of huge central ammunition depots, such as Bramley, Longtown, Kineton etc. Bramley is closed, Longtown much reduced in size and only Kineton still operates at any scale. There was also a network of small regional ammunition sub depots, many of which are now closed. These were filled with huge stocks of 'war maintenance reserve' ammunition, properly calculated on the basis of a shooting war in Europe. An expensive insurance policy for sure, but one we no longer think worth paying the premiums for. The government was seduced by the idea that just in time logistics or contracting out which worked in automotive manufacturing etc. would work for ammunition supply in war time. It doesn't.
Sums up the whole country really. Most people don’t care and would rather pay less council tax instead. Until they suddenly need it….
I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is why the "Russia has 15,000 tanks in storage" reports shouldn't be taken seriously - anything that has any value has already been looted and sold on the black market, all that's left are rusting hulks.
https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1651494541503913985
I never understood why we sold off all the defence establishments. There was perhaps an argument for RAE Farnborough being run in a similar way to the US National Labs - still owned by the country, run by a contractor for a fixed period to do what the government told them to do. Should we have lost RSAF Enfield? Possibly, lots of other countries closed their national small arms armouries but they had thriving private firearms industries to fall back on. For shells and bombs it makes no sense.
The peace dividend of the 90s is coming back to bite us.
Everyone forgets the maxin: In times of peace, prepare for war. They just look at the cost of things, see that they are not war and then decide that things are too expensive.
Why do you need tanks if the probability of war on the plains is now really low? Why do you need so many frigates and destroyers when naval warfare is just never going to happen? Why do you need so many regiments if there is nowhere for them to deploy to?
I remember seeing the photos of "the fleet" when I visited the bar at HMS Rook officers' mess way back in the day and it was HUUUGE. Now, if you want to use Gib as a harbour, you have to book it so people are there.
In times of peace, prepare for war.
Or 'walk softly, but carry a big stick'. When I joined the army many, many moons ago, it's strength was around 160,000. Now it's 76k, soon to reduce to 73k. Not enough to fill Wembley stadium. 'Teeth arms' will be a small proportion of that, when all the clerks, cooks, mechanics, storemen, signallers etc. (important though they are) are considered.
Small expeditionary ops and peace keeping missions are about all we can manage - properly defending the realm against a tier one foe? Hmm... 🤔
A full scale war changes things though - how many of the Ukrainians fighting now were in the army before the war?
I'd be interested to know whether the UK MoD is ramping up procurement of ammo. If not, why not, and if so, when did they start? A sensible Govt would have been getting quotes as soon as Putin started building up on the Ukraine border, and put them into effect as soon as he went over it ... but we don't have a Govt like that.
Everyone forgets the maxin: In times of peace, prepare for war.
It seems people would rather go by the other old saying " god and the navy we adore, when danger threatens and not before..." 😕
^^^ Yep and also...
"O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play"
I’d be interested to know whether the UK MoD is ramping up procurement of ammo. If not, why not, and if so, when did they start?
Without getting into details, there are varying stocks of ammunition, operational and training as has already been said by OB. Defence isn't in the business of telegraphing operational holdings.
The war games that everyone is referring to blew through the estimated ammunition allocation, which is perfectly okay because that's how you learn; through training.
A full scale war changes things though – how many of the Ukrainians fighting now were in the army before the war?
What are you suggesting? A draft? Having trained troops at both Phase 1 & 2, I've seen volunteers fold, so I'm not fully convinced pressed-men would do much better. See Russia for the meat grinder they've turned their forces into.
UK Armed Forces struggle to fill the current orbat, if we had a massive increase too rapidly it would bring nothing but issues. See the surge in Iraq as an example.
What are you suggesting? A draft?
If the UK was invaded in the way Ukraine has been I think there would be plenty of volunteers to help defend. Whether they are any good or not is a different matter. Getting to a draft stage would mean things are seriously screwed.
But isn’t the numbers thing what NATO is for, so no one nation is left to fight alone.
Defence isn’t in the business of telegraphing operational holdings.
The war games that everyone is referring to blew through the estimated ammunition allocation, which is perfectly okay because that’s how you learn; through training.
Yes indeed, I don't disagree at all, but I wasn't thinking of the war games. We've donated a lot of munitions to Ukraine, and are politically committed to donating more. I've read that we're now short ourselves; I don't know if that's true. I don't expect to be told operational holdings, just to be reassured that something is being done in a timely manor to ensure that we have adequate stocks for ourselves and whatever we may wish to donate further. We ran down our stock of medical PPE, and were caught out by Covid; are we at risk of the same thing with munitions?
*Pikachu shocked face*
Russian vessel at the pipeline bomb site 4 days before the blast...
https://twitter.com/JKaarsbo/status/1651650991341576200
looks like they found Nemo
*Pikachu shocked face*
shouldnt laugh but that made me spit out my coffee.
(kids are very into pokemon!)