Concerning a new British defence review

We need a mix of nuclear, clean coal with carbon capture and renewables (wind, tidal, wave, biomass etc.) and a huge expansion of urban tri-gen CHP facilities to provide district heating/cooling much more efficiently. Personally, I think the main grid supply will need base load turbine generators (hopefully nuke and clean coal) for the foreseeable future. That said, it’s surprising what painless, easy and cheap energy efficiency measures can do too.

Energy Resourse Independence

I would like to see tidal barrages in the Bristol Channel and Pentland Firth providing 10% of our energy needs. Nuclear power – another 40%. Wind and wave could realistically provide a further 10% of the whole in ten years time.

Nuclear has to be part of the mix, everybody in the industry agrees on that (OK, maybe apart from some in the wind sector:) ), the three reactor designs already pre-approved are French, US and Canadian AFAIK, but I’m no nuclear insider anymore.

Lets not forget we still have to import nuclear fuel, but its certainly a more reliable source than oil and gas! Something a lot of the green lobby seem to miss is the need for a variety of power sources. Personally I’d be happy to see a significant portion of our electricity coming from wind and related sources, but I don’t expect to rely on it, anymore than I expect to rely on nuclear, gas, oil or coal.

Besides, wind biggest enemy is still MOD, not the nuclear or fossil lobbies..

I agree that it is no more than an expensive publicity stunt, but I do consider that there is a need to ‘counter’ any Russian conventional rearmament. There are two very important aspects of deterrent. One is the obvious, the aspect of mutual assured bad day. The second, as important, is to have sufficient conventional forces that the other side does not consider it possible to mount any form of conventional attack without massive losses. This dictates that any proper strike to be nuclear, which is then deterred by the first deterrent. If Russia does manage to rebuild a fleet, and we lack the ability to monitor them all, the next stunt may very well involve surfacing a Russian sub in the Thames (not necessarily literally)!

Absolutely, nuclear deterrent alone is not enough – too much of a big stick. At what point would you trip the deterrent in, say disputes over resources?

Even though the need for these conventional forces now maybe low, there is still the need to “keep the hand in” so when/if things do start to look bleak, there is a suitable base to expand from.

There is one scenario for a conventional armed Russian fleet. And that is a result from offensive Russian quest for sub-ocean ressource fields. Any disputed claims (like in the Artic Ocean, or maybe in the North Pacific) could be heavily undergirded by conventional naval forces. There is that convential – nuclear threshold in the use of force to protect oceanic ressources. To what level would NATO be willing to defend Norway’s and Denmark’s and Canada’s claims against an obstinate Russian opposition?

Btw, there are plans for up to six new large Russian carriers. Whatever the chances for realization are, and whatever their role would be (OTHT assets platform?), it shows that Russian future naval strategy is not only seen as carried by the subforces.

That´s a slightly more realistic scenario (but just so) than a permanent Iranian naval base in the Azores Islands (right in the midle of the North Atlantic Ocean) 😀

Cheers 😉

Do you mean GE-Hitachi (80% owned by Hitachi), which is the firm bidding to supply nuclear power plants to the UK?

EDF wants to build nuclear power plants here, but I’d think it’s more likely to stick to French designs.

Nuclear has to be part of the mix, everybody in the industry agrees on that (OK, maybe apart from some in the wind sector:) ), the three reactor designs already pre-approved are French, US and Canadian AFAIK, but I’m no nuclear insider anymore.

There is one scenario for a conventional armed Russian fleet. And that is a result from offensive Russian quest for sub-ocean ressource fields. Any disputed claims (like in the Artic Ocean, or maybe in the North Pacific) could be heavily undergirded by conventional naval forces. There is that convential – nuclear threshold in the use of force to protect oceanic ressources. To what level would NATO be willing to defend Norway’s and Denmark’s and Canada’s claims against an obstinate Russian opposition?

Btw, there are plans for up to six new large Russian carriers. Whatever the chances for realization are, and whatever their role would be (OTHT assets platform?), it shows that Russian future naval strategy is not only seen as carried by the subforces.

It also makes investment in nuclear power stations essential, which will be necessary to decrease reliance on imported energy sources. In fact, General Electric do some excellent turn-key reactor installations, and with proper investment, the UK could move up to around 40% nuclear energy. I am not a fan of a lot of the ‘renewable’ sources, which are very expensive for the energy they produce. If the UK can (and it has been talking about it) produce 40% of its needs from renewables, and 40% from nuclear, there should be sufficient coal and oil to supply the remainder. If, on the other hand, there is no investment (by the government) in nuclear, preferring renewables, then the UK will be screwed.

To modify the saying, nuclear energy is the worst energy source, with the exception of all the others!

Do you mean GE-Hitachi (80% owned by Hitachi), which is the firm bidding to supply nuclear power plants to the UK?

EDF wants to build nuclear power plants here, but I’d think it’s more likely to stick to French designs.

It also makes investment in nuclear power stations essential, which will be necessary to decrease reliance on imported energy sources. In fact, General Electric do some excellent turn-key reactor installations, and with proper investment, the UK could move up to around 40% nuclear energy. I am not a fan of a lot of the ‘renewable’ sources, which are very expensive for the energy they produce. If the UK can (and it has been talking about it) produce 40% of its needs from renewables, and 40% from nuclear, there should be sufficient coal and oil to supply the remainder. If, on the other hand, there is no investment (by the government) in nuclear, preferring renewables, then the UK will be screwed.

To modify the saying, nuclear energy is the worst energy source, with the exception of all the others!

I would like them to go back to 35 main surface combatants and commit to 10 SSN’s long term plus the 4 SSBN’s. Sadly the realist in me see’s this as very unlikely for now.

There are a few clouds on the long horizon that suggest resource nationalism will be a bigger threat than Russia although they may be part of the same problem. If anyone read the head of Shells’ letter to his staff this week that found its way to the newspapers you will see that he sees this as a real scenario in 10 years. Other big hitters are starting to say the same even if they are not yet able to say it in public. Sadly possible future resource wars must now be considered in the mix and the RN / UK Government must factor this into their planning scenarios for all three services. To my mind making the navy smaller now would be a seriously dumb thing to do until the way forward is a little clearer.

I agree that it is no more than an expensive publicity stunt, but I do consider that there is a need to ‘counter’ any Russian conventional rearmament. There are two very important aspects of deterrent. One is the obvious, the aspect of mutual assured bad day. The second, as important, is to have sufficient conventional forces that the other side does not consider it possible to mount any form of conventional attack without massive losses. This dictates that any proper strike to be nuclear, which is then deterred by the first deterrent. If Russia does manage to rebuild a fleet, and we lack the ability to monitor them all, the next stunt may very well involve surfacing a Russian sub in the Thames (not necessarily literally)!

Which is why cooperation with Europe is the best way forward. Even a vaguely coherent Europe could easily counter anything Russia might play around with conventionally whilst not breaking a sweat and Britain and France should be more than capable of providing the required nuclear deterrent.

I agree that it is no more than an expensive publicity stunt, but I do consider that there is a need to ‘counter’ any Russian conventional rearmament. There are two very important aspects of deterrent. One is the obvious, the aspect of mutual assured bad day. The second, as important, is to have sufficient conventional forces that the other side does not consider it possible to mount any form of conventional attack without massive losses. This dictates that any proper strike to be nuclear, which is then deterred by the first deterrent. If Russia does manage to rebuild a fleet, and we lack the ability to monitor them all, the next stunt may very well involve surfacing a Russian sub in the Thames (not necessarily literally)!

It’s really not clear to me what the question is here.

The one thing I can’t see having changed since the Cold War is the idea of deterrence – so, to that extent, sealordlawrence has said it all with his Trident comment.

The Atlantic (or any other) exercises are a total irrelevance. The whole world knows that nobody is lining up to attack Russia and that all this arrant nonsense is just for gullible Russian public opinion.

The Russians, similarly, aren’t about to mount a conventional, seaborne invasion of the UK, US or wherever.

I imagine most western military strategists are observing the whole thing with a degree of amused detachment – as, quite likely, is Putin himself.

It’s a publicity stunt.

If Russia is judged to be the primary future threat, a defense review should fund the Trident replacement and scrap CVF, FSC and even further Type 45 units. A Russian threat is a strategic threat, to be countered solely by deterrent forces. If you really believe Russia is the sole future threat, you can forget expenditionary warfare, amphibious forces, big deck carriers, and even ASW escorts because Russian SSBNs in home waters can’t be eliminated by surface combatants.

The truth is that Russia has ceased to be a major conventional naval power. We can expect new Russian ballistic and cruise missile submarines, as a well as frigate sized surface combatants, but Russia is still a long way from rebuilding to the Soviet era levels of conventional capabilities. Soviet era naval policies which emphasized large cruisers and destroyers were mistaken at the time and probably won’t ever be repeated by modern Russia.

This is a rare occasion when what Tinwing says is actually correct.

There is however two questions here, is Russia a major strategic threat to British security, the answer there is really no. If it is then the best way forward is greater cooperation and unity within Europe.

Then the next question, do you want to defend against Russia or deter Russia?

For detterence not that much would have to be done, just insure that Trident can still penetrate any Russian ABM systems and that the SSBN’s carrying it are safe from being caught by Russian SSN’s before they launch their missiles.

If you want to defend against Russia then the UK has to produce a strategic defense system the likes of which the world has not yet seen. A combined AD/ABM/ASAT network that is self shielding and offers the UK 100% coverage. The end result would probably be a UK economy structured somewhat like that of North Korea.

What should the UK do? Renew trident (being done anyway) and make sure that FSC retains a decent ASW/sea control capability, other than that just carry on as normal.

With reference to an earlier thread and the recent Russian excercises in the Bay of Biscay, should these excercises be taken into account in any future defence review?

If Russia is judged to be the primary future threat, a defense review should fund the Trident replacement and scrap CVF, FSC and even further Type 45 units. A Russian threat is a strategic threat, to be countered solely by deterrent forces. If you really believe Russia is the sole future threat, you can forget expenditionary warfare, amphibious forces, big deck carriers, and even ASW escorts because Russian SSBNs in home waters can’t be eliminated by surface combatants.

The truth is that Russia has ceased to be a major conventional naval power. We can expect new Russian ballistic and cruise missile submarines, as a well as frigate sized surface combatants, but Russia is still a long way from rebuilding to the Soviet era levels of conventional capabilities. Soviet era naval policies which emphasized large cruisers and destroyers were mistaken at the time and probably won’t ever be repeated by modern Russia.

The problem is that Russian force levels are unlikely to remain steady, especially with the oil & gas revenues coming in. Putin has made gestures about the rebuilding of the Soviet (sorry, Russian…) Navy, and though some of these are absurdly over ambitious, there will most likely be some form of build up. There will probably be more subs (and more modern subs), a few more destroyers and cruisers, and more naval aviation, perhaps more Tu-22M3s (probably refurbished ones, since they aren’t all that old).

The simple fact is that a western military build-up is exactly what Putin wants in his own perverse way, because it gives him a scapegoat for anything bad. This does not mean that the West shouldn’t rebuild some of its military strength, it just means that it is a bit of a double edged sword.

Certainly a good starting point would be for the UK to step up the Astute and Type 45 programs a bit – it is a good hedge on future threats.

Perhaps, but I’m not sure how much there really is in Russia to take account of. If forces were kept at their current levels, barring any major builudp Her Majesty’s Armed Forces should have more than enough to not feel intimidated.

Alot of what Russia is doing is just muscle flexing to make themselves feel big, I don’t think anyone is really buying it.