Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced at a NATO summit today that Britain will increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030.
The UK currently spends around 2% of GDP on defence.
The following is an excerpt from his speech.
“This has been a crucial summit in that we are resolved not just to support Ukraine, but we have agreed a new strategic concept, we are moving beyond the doctrine of tripwire deterrence on NATO’s eastern flank to a new approach of defence deterrence by denial. And countries around the table are also recognising that they must spend more.
And in our case that means meeting, and being prepared to exceed, the target we set for ourselves a decade ago of everybody spending 2% of our GDP on defence, goals which were then set for a very different era. What we are saying is that we want Jens Stoltenberg, the General Secretary to start work on that new target now and he has agreed to do that.
We need to invest for the long term, in vital capabilities like future combat air, while simultaneously adapting to a more dangerous and competitive world. The logical conclusion of the investments we propose to embark, of these decisions, is 2.5% of GDP on Defence by the end of the decade.”
This comes after news that Britain announced an increased contribution to NATO, in response to Russian actions, at a summit in Madrid.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace MP said:
“We have always been clear that our strength and security comes from our alliances, and NATO is at the heart of that. The New Force Model and our presence in Estonia will ensure that the Alliance is able to respond at pace, helping to determine stability across Europe in the decades to come.”
UK providing carrier, troops and more to NATO to deter Russia
The Ministry of Defence fleshed out the details in a news release:
“RAF Typhoon and F-35B Lightning fighter jets, Royal Navy vessels including Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, and brigade-sized land forces will all be made available to NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) as part of the New Force Model.
NATO has introduced the New Force Model in support of Leaders’ decision to modernise and strengthen the NATO Force Structure for the future. Allies will declare capabilities, equipment and forces available to support SACEUR, ensuring they are in the right place at the right time. This will allow the Alliance’s military command to plan for emerging threats, safe in the knowledge that these assets will be available to take part in the Alliance’s response. The UK will also contribute to the new Allied Reaction Force: an agile, multi-domain and combat-effective force ready to deploy at very high readiness and to respond to a range of crises.”
The Ministry of Defence says that in addition to increasing its deployments to Estonia, since the Russian invasion the UK has also deployed hundreds of troops to Poland and sent more aircraft to conduct air policing in Romania. Meanwhile, HMS Prince of Wales has led the Alliance’s Maritime High Readiness Force since January 2022.
Empty promise from a professional politician. Never going to happen.
Here we go again. It’s a wonder some of the people on this site aren’t on suicide watch.
We won’t need to be, that’s being taken care of!
I suspect it does people good to rage at someone & Boris will not care – it goes with the job.At the next election people will turn up a the ballot box voting for exactly the same imperfect people that reflect society. Personally I’ve always thought that Boris was an advocate for a strong military but who is concious that MPs believe that society doesn’t care about the armed forces and journalists believe the public do not understand the whole concept of NATO. Is there truth in that?
If, as the article mentions is the PM’s aim, NATO agree to a new minimum spend of 2.5% then it won’t be an empty promise. On the whole this has got to be positive news surely. How it pans out and what it is spent on is key, but we won’t know that for years.
Agree, the UK were the ones to propose the 2% in the first place now they are trying to put it to 2.5%. The UK is always guaranteed to follow whatever minimum is set at NATO no matter who is in government.
If comrade Corbyn had been elected, we would be spending at least twice that, right ?
Always look forward.
Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. So we need to look at the past & the present to avoid future dangers. If we weren’t so weak & minimal in our conventional forces, Russia & China wouldn’t be so confident to threaten, abuse & attack others. Weak political leadership has allowed things to become dangerous as we see now.
Letting that leadership off the hook helps only the fools who drove us into the ditch.
Boris & the Tories have taken Russian money, don’t forget that. We’ve also given China a heck of a lot of manufacturing industries we stole from our own workforce. We all hoped for a new world order of peaceful co operation after the fall of communism, but our hopes have been dashed.
“Liked”
No-one learns from history, though, Frank. As for New World Order; there’s Peace and there’s War. There’s Rich and there’s Poor.
And I’m not even that jaundiced.
Please give a figure for the standing army, number of warships, submarines and fighting aircraft we would have needed to maintain for Russian to be worried about invading Ukraine?
Considering the US has an absolutely gigantic military and Russia still invaded Ukraine it needs to be an affordable number you come up with based on the UK’s GDP.
Virtually every country has handed over manufacturing to the Chinese, we arent solely guilty of that. Im assuming Russian money was flooding around London in the days before Boris got into power, also dont forget that.
I think the problem is that US intelligence informed Ukraine of an invasion but countries like France said it was nonsense. France has huge investments tied up with Russia, the gas in Siberia for one. There is a reason the Gen Eric Vidaud had to carry the can. France and Germany really need to step up the aid they have promised Ukraine, particularly since they both helped arm Russia in the years preceding.
So in short, Ukraine could of been better prepared. UK is buying some systems openly on the international marker to donate to Ukraine. The problem you can see, we have nothing of note to donate in some areas. Assets which could of repositioned/sold to Ukraine prior to the invasion.
We have been sleep walking since the invasion and lack of response since Crimea. Sanctions should of been enforced then, plus budgets increased to ally any gaps in our defence.
He didn’t say Boris specifically he said Tories…and he’s right Look at the red carpet royal event Cameron gave to the Chinese’s..who were even then oppressors of Tibet et al and have shown no indication of changing that approach with uighar and Hong Kong.. absolutely disgraceful .Even after COVID there are many Tories who support and encourage Chinese money into UK infrastructure with Nuclear and Water as main concerns…If COVID wasn’t a major red flag then this should be!.makes you wonder what boards or directorships some of these MPS are involved in. And don’t get me started on their influence in our education systems.We are quite simply driven by money over all else and it will bite us in the arse very shortly.
WTF has that statement go to do with anything! If mr blobby had been In charge would he be riding a missile going blobby blobby blobby all the way to Moscow. What matters is now and right now labour are actually saying defence needs to increase urgently in budget, numbers and kit
Parties say a lot when in opposition, knowing they have zero responsibility for what they say.
It kinda does matter. Criticising those in power without examining why they were put there is relevant,.cause and effect. Labour as the dominate opposition through its failures had a large part to play. After the election the first thing large parts of the part did was blame the press which raises they question, has the party really changed and learnt lessons.
Yes it matters to look at where failures and successes happened in the past. But to state that under Corbyn this and that would of happened is guess work. He didn’t oppose dreadnoughts/trident in defence plan.
Jack said comrade corbyn would of spent double, right?
Labour made their defence plan clear at RUSI. We know where Corbyn stood on UKs deterrent he’d apposed it his entire career. He came out again just recently anti NATO and anti nuclear. He bowed to the unions and the party spin doctors whilst leading the party. Same with the EU. The last election was like 2 farmers selling rotten fruit at a market people had to choose, of course there’s those who who will always buy from a certain stall no matter how rotten and defend the rotten goods.
Corbyn accepted the Dreadnought submarines but they would put to sea with no nuclear missiles onboard.
No point in replying to them, conspiracy theorist and Troll’s. Corbyn is not even in the Labour Party any more.
Leaving aside Corbyn’s main achievement of allowing racists in his party to emerge from under their stones, he also stated in his manifestos that under him there were all sorts of things that would be done.
Rather than ‘not opposing’ the nuclear deterrent, he proposed to cripple it by refusing to meet his responsibility as PM to push the button should it be necessary.
The Corbynite tendency in Labour in Parliament – represented imo by the Socialist Campaign Group, which was the group that put him up for the Labour leadership election in 2015 – roughly doubled its representation in Parliament at the last Election (2019).
Of the current membership of 34-35 *, 17 were first elected in 2019. Out of 202 iirc MPs. And about a third signed the Stop the War ‘expansionist NATO’ letter.
(*) Corbyn is not currently a Labour MP, and the Lab status of Claudia Webbe after her criminal conviction for harassment is uncertain.
Ah yes, it will be directed to “re -education” internment camps to ensure we all follow the Marxist doctrine. Besides, it’s important to purge out any capitalist right leaning heresy.
Big brother knows best!(and is watching, off course)
Well someone has got to fund the military, the Russian military that is.
Not twice no, but according to the manifesto I think the standing Army would be larger. (80K)
Boris’s idea of not closing the borders early in the Covid outbreak is one example of his poor leadership. Would it have prevented a pandemic no, but it certainly would of helped reduce first outbreak.
The government’s earlier hopes that it could rely on large proportions – maybe 60% – of the population getting ill, getting better and becoming immune to build up some herd immunity in the UK population – something many experts thought was dangerous.
Herd immunity is normally created by vaccinating large numbers of children, safeguarding those who cannot be inoculated. Nobody has ever tried to do that by allowing infection with a disease before.
The reason we stole a march on the vaccine, was because we had no option left to try it before others deemed it ‘safe’.
Off point I agree, but Boris was never a leader we could rely upon. At least Corbyn appears to be a man of his word. He is no communist, but lacks the ‘charisma’ other modern politicians have. But who you more likely to ask to leave your wallet with, him or Boris?
Behave ..
There will be 1 possibly 2 GEs before this is fully implemented. Plenty of opportunity to reverse it. Just saying
Would be kinda daft to ramp it up straight away. It’ll take time to purchase new kit and recruit.
Yeah, China will not be able to ramp up on those horrible uniforms now being worn if more needed (real poor quality and should be being made in the UK) We had better in the past for sure. Longer lasting and comfortable. Mill kit well get ALL those tanks back in service and lets get kit that actually works before we commit to wasting so much cash on it (AJAX etc etc) RN Needs something to sink ships and hit targets ashore urgently.
Urgency isn’t HMGs strong point!
Current finances arent HMG’s strong point, that is more of the point!
Only issue with that is i dont know if you Noticed, THEY ALL ARE. none of them are concerned about anything BUT THEMSELVES. so regardless of who is in power, HE/SHE was voted for by the People, and not his Party.
I don’t think that’s true. I’m certain most MPs enter parliament wanting to serve the public and positively influence the country.
The problem is the adversarial nature of politics coupled with an aggressive media and party system.
Uncertainty; admissions of fault; incompatible views all result in a political onslaught and personal attacks. Honesty, traditional beliefs and doubt are punished – lies, virtue signalling and unwarranted conviction are praised. The politicians who survive and those who “float” to the surface are the ones who’ve learnt to navigate this ocean of sewage.
We get the politicians we deserve.
A very good post which goes to the heart of things Nathan. The main reason we have this particularly adversarial situation in the UK is our first-past-the-post electoral system, which underpins the two-party system.
Both sides take an opposing stance on virtually every issue, backed by rabid, politically driven newspaper owners and editors, so life is an endless series of political clashes and points scoring. The silent majority of people will accept a sensible consensus on most things, but the extreme wings of the two parties will never settle for that, and too often they are the tail wagging the dog.
This two-party wrestling match happens in the USA, where it is now turning into a mega culture war and in much of the Commonwealth, usually with the same problems we get here in our public life.
Proportional representation is a much fairer system, giving each party seats broadly in proportion to their vote. I would be very happy to have a Coalition government making sensible, compromise policies and decisions, it seems to work far better , economically and financially too, in Europe compared to our or the US or Australian or Canafian polarised, two-party dogfights.
Eac
It is amusing. He started the speach talking about a new risky world and then talks about increasing defense within 8 years. Ala after the next 2 general elections and so long after his gone. Surely if the threat is here currently we need to spend now.
Hopefully some details will come out and it will be a gradual increase over those years and so there is at least some positive to take from it.
Reminds me of Nazi Germanys Z-Plan, designed to produce a decent fleet by c1943 but the war started in 1939. 2.5% by 2030 won’t cut it. We need to deter Russian & Chinese neo imperialism now, not when it’s run riot many years. Western democracy could be in danger of extinction by 2030 as Russian/Chinese continues to destabilise & subvert elections. Look at how close Trump brought the USA to civil war or dictatorship.
The US is closer to civil war now than it was under Trump, he wasn’t the pariah his political opponents and those aligned with them made him out to be.
The problem with the USA is they are turning into two separate countries with very different political philosophies living with a single political system designed to prevent one group gaining significant advantage over the other. Post-2022 Biden will be a lame duck President. 2024 the Republicans will likely take everything again and calls for cessation will start coming from the Democrats again.
The only way forward for the USA is to scale back the role of the federal government and push a lot more to the individual states. Like Britain they need to return to a central government grounded exclusively in common assent. Not majority opinion but common assent. Otherwise they will cease to get anything done and the country will tear itself apart.
The only politician in recent years that keep most of his promises was Trump. Guess people now prefer politicians that lie and make empty promises…..
Clearly you have been buying into his hype. Reworking those promises to fit whatever results actually occur IS lies and empty promises, the only remotely clever bit is convincing people otherwise.
Well said.
He got closer to keeping his promises than others and the result of Biden’s policies are thousand of children in cages on the border, hundreds of thousands crossing illegally and many dying on the way – what we don’t see are the traffickers enslaving women and girls.
You probably didn’t know but Trump’s policies stopped this and he invested $400m to open a centre to stop human trafficking.
Trump, who thought Putin was a great guy, sucked up to him & works to rule in his image? Putin loved the idea of an easily played idiot in the Whitehouse.
We have problems in Ukraine now not because Trump is in office but because Biden is. The disastrous pull out of Afghanistan directly seeded this conflict. Trumps “relationship” with Putin kept him at bay.
Given the evidence, there is simply no justification whatsoever for the assertion that Putin easily played Trump – none. We in Europe have been subjected to a continuous flow of anti-Trumpian stories, spin and exaggeration. We are told about the investigations and the testimonies of his enemies in gory detail but the dismissal of these by actual federal investigators are washed over. We hear evidence from aids, but then we are not told about the testimonies of others that directly contradict these “start witnesses”. We heard recently about a “crazed” Trump who tried to grab the steering wheel on Jan 6th but we don’t here about the secret service personnel who were there, willing to testify on oath that that never happened. We are reminded that Trump was indicted twice to drive the message home; the fact he was twice acquitted is ignored. None of us is immune to bias in the media but if your sources are based on the BBC I bet I can predict fairly certainly what you believe on a number of issues.
I remember listening to a friend, a highly intelligent chap who hates trump. He was speaking to me about “watching checks and balances” swinging into action to limit Trumps actions as though he was proclaiming some original thought. I let him chat away…I’d read the same the Guardian article he was nearly quoting verbatim. But I had also read the political talking points in the USA which formed the basis of this in the left leaning media of the US. I witnessed and marvelled first hand how my intelligent friend; a highly educated and leading engineer had been turned into a political pawn of the Democrats via a media trail leading straight back to the USA. He was totally unaware that his political worldview had been shaped by others via media sources he trusted by pushing ideas interweaved with ones that tickled his biases.
I’m not immune to media bias but I got a sharp wake-up call back in the early 2000s and since then I’ve been very wary and become far more self-aware of narratives being pushed by different sectors of the media. So, now, by choice I don’t watch the BBC and I choose to read a variety of sources, even the Guardian, to help inform my picture.
There is some serious reality deficit going on in this recent thread, hope it’s not contagious.
Well said Nathan; nicely put. Absolutely I agree that Putin believed Biden was – and still is – weak. In my opinion, this in large part emboldened Putin to invade Ukraine.
Also let’s not forget the Chinese who too have the same view of Biden; you can bet your bottom dollar they are laser focused on the West’s response to Russia’s exploits in Ukraine. Will China risk an invasion of their own against Taiwan whilst Biden is in office or wait to see who replaces him?
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 …way before Biden came.to Office…We have problems in Ukraine today because we collectively did absolutely nothing about that.Trump divided the US more than any other modern president and will continue to do so. Im no fan of ol’ sleepy Joe O’Biden either but Trump was/is an arsehole…civil war in US (if it comes) will be due to Trumps divisive politics.
Totally agree Dan; love him or hate him, he did a lot of what he said he would do. He wasn’t perfect and made mistakes but overall, I truly believe he tried to do what was right for the American people. Don’t be surprised if he runs again for 2024. He still commands a very strong base and carries a lot of influence in the Republican Party.
Considering Biden has stated he will run again, the next POTUS will be a Republican!
You are as informed as a field mouse there is nothing conservative about republicans anymore they have no counterpart anywhere in the west. The closest coimparison is the Taliban (assault rifles for 18 year olds yes; 10 year old girl raped abortion no). They along with Trump are in danger of being charged as a RICO by DOJ to cover all the crimes committed. Foolish to comment on the domestic politics of a country you don’t live in really.
You should really learn not to “assume” that which you don’t know. I am American and I know EXACTLY what I am talking about thank you very much!! Now who’s the misinformed field mouse… idiot.
“I truly believe he tried to do what was right for the American people.”
An lying troll or as idiotic of a statement as a human being can make. The list of active investigations goes on and on and the story is only beginning to be told but look up Tom Barrack and the charges he faces. Trump was an agent of foreign powers and will go down as the most corrupt president in US history full stop.
True. Boris won’t even be PM in 2030.
Dear God, what if he is?
Then defence spending will be 2.5% will it not?
John, full marks for your unrestrained optimism in the face of adversity! You join the small minority of citizens who still believe a word Boris says!
We are in a position where, due to repeated Tory cuts to the forces, we have next to nothing spare to contribute to the urgent NATO 300,000. We are left, as so often with Boris, talking big with nothing to back it up.
The 2021 defence review, with its lunge to out-of-area deployment and the Navy at the expense of NATO Europe, clearly needs to be revisited and revised.
Boris cannot do so without upsetting his vociferous Brexit/Make Britain Great Again minority wing in Parliament, hence the weasel words about some supposed increased budget eight years away. The chances of Boris being there in 8 months let alone 8 years look extremely slender.
So we will waffle our way through it, providing next to nothing in the way of forward support in NATO while pretending to the UK public that we are pulling our weight.
A fairly dismal episode in British military history.
.
Obviously…it’s not he will lie is it…🙂
If is definitely the operative word. Its always jam tomorrow with this government.
Politicians take difficult decisions that they need to get past a society that believe war is in the dim and distant past or far away lands. Perhaps this professional politican is thinking that the public are beginning to wake up and smell the coffee.
Interesting and how will that be spent? We still need a big increase in numbers across the board. Perhaps the carriers will at last get the air wing assets they deserve and other current programmes with increased haste. NO MORE CUTS Boris.
The Ukraine conflict should tell us that it is not solely a numbers game. Ukraine has potentially millions of fighters and Russia tens of thousands of tanks. What is needed is modern weapons in sufficient numbers in the hands of trained people. We also need a public who are not so dim that they have to be told by the BBC what NATO is.
The right motivated and trained people are the most important thing. Working kit another. High tech not always the way as history tells us too (Vietnam for example). Quality yes but still need numbers.
Haha, the BBC who continually tell us what they think is right & wrong & then have the deluded cheek to tell us they’re not biased?
It is a numbers game when tyrants calculate wether they can get away with aggression.
Well put, to pick up your point, in reality Ukraine has more fighters mobilised than Russia when on its own soil, the difference is organisation, training, supply and motivation. Russia need to win on all those counts, not on numbers. Yes Russia is trying to win based on numbers but how is that going for them. Not sure why NATO needs to mobilise 300k troops when russias only advantage is reckless brutality and big numbers of inferior equipment, of which is dwindling by the day. Even their elite units are exhausted and whittled down to importance. Those numbers are draining down the plug.
Impotence not importance, jeez
By end of decade, so how? A graduated and locked in increase every year to be that by 2030 or just kicking the can down the road for next administration to have to deal with/roll back on.
Is this just the art of saying something but in reality promising nothing.
I’ll go back to my cynical box now 🙂
Yeah very good of bogis to promise something that requires him to make zero effort. I promised my employer to work 2 days a week for free by 2030. I retire in 2026😂😂😂
Yeah it’s to be expected that for politicians promises are always long term while their actions are always short term, what’s best for the Country is rarely the consideration when getting elected is the aim and self promotion and fooling the public the priority.
So you increase it from tomorrow your not going to get another T26 or Astute in built tomorrow or recruit over night. Taking the politics out of it common sense says you have to ramp up spending.
The sensible start is not to cut the things we will need later.
Keep the army, and save retraining 10k new bods with the skills we are about to make redundant 😎.
I think it is also quite important to remember that BloJo-BoJo is the illegitimate offspring of Pinocchio and a performing sealion.
DRS however enthusiastic politicians are about defence the public has been complacent for 70 years now. Contrary to popular opinion society decides where money is spent by being interested in it (or not).
Interesting.
Now what about the 2023/4/5 dip in spending how is that to be flattened out?
What does this really mean.
Kudos to Ben Wallace for being the first defence secretary in my memory who got a cash injection and a commitment to increase spending. Will have also been down to hard work by Radakind who reformed RN spending habits.
Let’s see the detail please.
Probably smoke and mirrors again. Meanwhile, he’s committing extra troops to the European theatre AND cutting the army by 10,000! An absolutely insane decision. Not only does it dramatically increase our vulnerability, it subjects the army to impossible overstretch. Cameron cut the army from what is scarcely a bare minimum of 102,000 to 82,000, and now Johnson reduces it to 72,000! Beyond belief. We will pay a terrible price for this.
Pathetic. We are basically a few steps short of war with Russia, where the consequences could become catastrophic, and THIS IS IT? Johnson and Sunak are, quite simply, taking the p1ss.
What did you expect of them …thats 8 years away I douby 0.5 % will make any difference over that time period .
Quick Question for those more financially astute than I – What happens to GDP in a recesssion?
GDP may stagnate but I cannot see it shrinking unless another covid hits us. Don’t forget GDP is not tax returns, it’s all spend in an economy not just the governments, so when we say 2% of GDP it’s easy to forget that actual government spend is more than 2% from what it has available. I find it shocking we are now back in the position of paying more in debt interest each year than what we spend on the entire military, was only 1996 when we had a surplus each year.
A surplus in government budget is a poor sign. Similarly, while people complain about inflation, deflation is far, far worse. I can explain further if necessary.
A surplus would be used for investment in public services or tax cuts or whatever, then there wouldn’t be a surplus, so I don’t get your point. By surplus I mean no debt, so let’s say that. Of course deflation is far worse, so is being attacked by sharks, I can explain further if you like.
Even with a small budget surplus last had in 1999, it would still take a very long time to pay a trillion off.
Also don’t forget that inflation devalues the real value of the debt.
Ok so. Firstly it’s not 0.5% it’s 25% relative to our current budget. That’s a big difference.
As to GDP during a recession. GDP during a recession always falls. That is the definition of a recession; two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth constitute a recession. Despite Boris’ spin on some fantasy 2.3% budget, the truth is it has been declining as a proportion of GDP. If GDP declines also, it will result in a significant budget cut at at a time so crucial.
However, I do want to debate the possibility of a British recession. London, despite low public confidence, is fuelled by international investment which remains relatively high. I was in a meeting with a particular American construction firm, and they appeared amicable to the funding of further large-scale development in the City of London and in Nine Elms. I have also spoken with German companies that have started investment in both Leeds and Birmingham. That demonstrates fairly high corporate confidence. The British economy does not rely on the stock market as much as the American one and, so, fluctuations in consumer and investor confidence do not matter that much. Of course, the economy cannot function without the large private sector and without public spending but that means a recession based off of speculation is less likely here. The surest way of Britain getting to a recession, and in the mind of many of my friends (many of whom also studied economics) is by us believing a recession is coming. Such beliefs caused the Great Depression.
There is a different way though. London is influential. Problems here – in our forex markets, in real estate prices, even in our relatively small stock exchange, are felt throughout the world. But this is not a unique thing. There is no single city as economically influential. Bar one. New York’s colossal stock markets have felt poor the entire year and have severely underperformed. If US inflation does not stop, or if the US reports continued GDP decline (the past quarter also had a shrink), or if the stock market suffers a sudden drop (as crypto did recently) then it is possible the US will enter a recession. And a problem with the US economy not only “may” cause problems elsewhere, it certainly will. The US is a quarter of global GDP, and holds a third of global net wealth. The US and the EU are both closer to a recession than us. A recession in either of these mammoth economies, in the U.S. due to stock markets, lack of satisfaction, low confidence, and GDP growth and in the EU due to massive inflation, resource problems and the influx of refugees (not only from Ukraine but from Africa, in particular due to the reliance on Ukrainian wheat and grain) will quickly diffuse across the world.
That’s sort of what I was asking..if GDP shrinks with a recession then in the 0.5% ‘increase’ in spending could end up being less in real terms and taking into account inflation then it becomes doubley less (if that makes sense)..Johnson probably thinks its a shame we aren’t currently spending 0.5%of GDP he could spin it that he was doubling it.Its real spending that’s should be the indicator not a percentage of an arbitrary mechanism for measuring “growth”….I understood GDP wasnt originally meant to be used to measure a countries economy.and the yanks changed its use as a measure (what a surprise)…Also Japan has low GDP …how does it measure it’s defence spending…GDP could be considered a bit of a ‘con’ measurement?
Japan doesn’t have low GDP. It has the third largest GDP in the world and the largest non-superpower economy. Often dodgy accounting does make up a large part of defence spending, especially considering the percentage of GDP. For example, some countries like to take a single quarter of GDP, the one with the lowest GDP, and take defence spending for that quarter too. In the U.K., that now works perfectly. Defence spending is usually higher in the two quarters after the budget comes out, which now is November. Meanwhile, GDP is often lowest in the January-April quarter since people spend less money after splashing on festivities. So, if we take lower than average GDP for the year, and higher than average defence spending for the year, our defence spending has become slightly inflated. That is one example of an accounting tricked used by the government. Spending as a percentage of gdp is definitely often used to con the public and give appearances that do not exist. I for one believe that in times such as these budgets must be increased not according to abstract numbers (that are nicely rounded by the way and make no operational sense) but in respect to requirements. If the MOD outlines what is critical, and it is fiscally within reason, it should be done. That might be 2.68% or 2.44%. Point is it’s not a sensationalist effort at giving a budget raising performance.
Er ok
The defence budget allocation increase for it’s remaining 2.75 years until Apr 2025, would need to be increased to keep it’s real value, or if not, the proportion spent on defence as GDP will fall.
The promised increase in defence spending may only occur after Apr 2025?
GDP goes down but pretty much all political parties and foreign peers are making defence spend linked to GDP..But even if you double defence spend from tomorrow you can’t buy another T26 or even another Typhoon tomorrow you can’t add manpower tomorrow. You have to recruit and train so rises have to be incremental.
True, I think that War will Russia could only be a few months away at best
I may be wrong but based on their performance in Ukraine, Russia is not going to be able to undertake a successful conventional peer conflict with NATO anytime soon.
I think we need to learn the lesson that as far as Putin is concerned capability and intention are too completely different things. His personal beliefs not reality guide his decisions. He could wake up tomorrow with his knickers in a twist over Kaliningrad and he’s in a regime surrounded by cowards who let him do what he wants. We are honestly not in control of the decision whether or not we’ll be at war with Russia in the next 6 months. Better for us if we plan and prepare for that scenario now.
Just read that they still can barely field a squadron of Stealth fighters if an aircraft with 2nd Gen engines can actually be called that and that Checkmate has just been delayed till 2027 at best as there are grave doubts that the foreign investment to produce it will ever arrive, or will be much delayed at best as the foreign technology it needs simply won’t be available to it now. Despite all their blustering hype they really are not at all well off in high tech war winning weaponry. Seem to be rattling through their Soviet antiques too by the sound of it taking away the mass that was always their greatest advantage. To think the Chinese were/are desperate for Russian engine technology to solve their own problems. Give them another 5 years and they will be selling theirs to Russia. That said Russia cannot be underestimated even if their appetite is rather bigger than their stomach the Wests stomach for spending on weaponry and defence is still to be tested when it means less of everything else, just that everything else will mean little if we don’t have the means to defend it but for how long will a suffering public buy into that necessity it’s been Putin’s gamble all along as he in turn suppresses his own peoples ability to object. That said that plan probably looked better on paper than it’s likely going to be in reality for him.
True, I think that War with Russia could only be a few months away at best
How do you edit your comments?
To the right is a cog if you are on a tablet you may have to pass your finger over it to reveal it. The edit facility is enclosed within it.
I find the edit facility is unavailable after a time.
Yes, you’ve only got a limited time before it remains as is. Anyone know how long that is? 30 mins, an hour?
You see Russia invading a NATO country? I doubt it. They are weakened from losses in Ukraine and massive hit to the economy.
I’m not sure I see a war with Russia.
I think Ukraine might well grind them up so much that they are not much of a threat.
The real issue is China and doing enough that they take NATO – or whatever it needs to be called – seriously with AUKUS bolstered.
After this conflict China will own Russia so China is the real worry as is the disintegration of Russia.
My concern is lack of plans for peace and rebuilding a demilitarised Russian economy without the graft without external intervention by economic carrots.
Precisely, this is a sideshow for China, the West is preoccupied and threatened in Europe while it’s ‘partner’ is irreversibly pushed into client state status further weakened even as a junior partner while forced to buy its technology in exchange for its cheap petro carbons. Lovely jubbly in Chinese as long as it doesn’t decay too far which is probably its present fear and be one’s a total lame duck. And there we all thought Putin was a clever tactician.
It a hot war happens it might happen sooner!
Inflation will probably destroy any actuual increase by then. We’ll pay 2.5& but still get less.
Makes a nice headline but when? And:
‘Before we spend another penny, it would make sense to make some reforms about defence spending & the MoD.
I’ve argued for an age that we have funding a**e-backwards. We (the UK) currently have a budget each year & the branches then argue for their programmes to be funded. Some are then delayed or slowed to spread to cost (increasing total cost & leading to capability gaps!), some cancelled just before they bear fruit & some sunk costs are followed by more money.
What we should be doing is to decide what we want to be in the world, what capabilities we therefore need & then buy it in the most efficient manner possible. We have to start thinking longer term.‘
And stop the accounting trickery where we fold everything even remotely linked to defence onto the spreadsheet & saying to the rest of NATO ‘see, we spent money!’. If it’s not something that goes whiz-bang or directly supports the people making it go whiz-bang, it’s not defence spending.
Music to my ears Stu. If only the powers that be could grab a bit of your common sense. We have tasks that are made for us such as the Expeditionary Force with the Scandinavian and Baltic states; North Sea/ Artic Protection; Force projection and insertion with the carriers and commando’s. Lock into these and then buy the best kit that money can buy.
Leaving the cynical comments to one side for a moment… hats off to Ben Wallace and the Lizz Truss whom have clearly used the timing of this to press the PM into a further increase (albeit graduated) over the coming few year. But make no mistake this will be worth £-bns in additional funding. Worth noting too the the Chancellor has most likely only agreed under considerable duress. Worth bearing in mind that defence hasn’t been a vote winner for about 100 years in the UK, and very rarely has there been the political will, let alone public support to boast spending at the expense of other things.
What I’m gently trying to say to the inevitable negative comments about politicians (many deserved), is that since 2020 we have turned a corner in terms of the narrative, and importance of defence, and that can only be a positive step.
At last, a reasoned, thought out response.
Cheers Sean
Agree with this. It’s jolly good news and pretty remarkable, although I do appreciate that the devil is in the detail.
Just read an article (guardian) saying cumulative extra will be 55 billion by 2030, with a Def budget of 74.5bill. IF that is the case, that’s an average extra of 6.9 billion a year over the next 8 years, although I understand it will likely be much lower at the start cumulative maths and all that, I also understand that it will in reality be much more complex than this.
Still a wins a win. Next battle is to spend the money efficienctly and try and have a competitive, steady drumbeat if production.
thanks John, I definitely hear you in terms of spending the money wisely. I would suggest that a very targeted approach would maximise the gain, and although I’m especially pro Navy….the Army really needs to be looked at, with a view to increasing it’s size (though I could say that about almost everything in terms of UK defence!)
Sorry is this in pounds or dollars?
I honestly feel you’re being a bit over optimistic in your interpretation of this.
Truss and Wallace have more leverage while the PM is struggling, he needs to keep his cabinet happy.
Moreover with the Chancellor, the target is 8 years away, probably at least 2 general elections in that time, its easy to give the green light on something that far away.
Lastly the army was promised to not be cut anymore, look what happened there.
Hi James, noted on all your comments to be fair. Though for the sake of having said it the PM has made clear his intention to fight at the very least another election (if not a 3rd term), though granted all of that really is too far away to call. The hope is that a Conservative Government would keep to their commitment, or a Labour one would carry it forward…though I’d rather not risk that, but we’ll see how things pan out.
No matter the reservations (which I share somewhat with you), I do believe this a positive development whichever way we slice it.
Doesn’t matter how many elections away. If Jens achieves the aim of making this the new NATO minimum spend then any U.K. PM not meeting it is going to be placed in a politically and diplomatically difficult position.
It depends on how you spend it. Labour promised 2% last election but on examination of their RUSI briefing it would have eroded key capability with a drive towards peace keeping and aid. 2% spent on the right things is better than 2.5% on the wrong things.
Yeah, well that’s Labour in a nutshell…
Yep, goodbye to war fighting. Kinook wanted that once, turning GR1s into “interceptors”
Britain needs to be at the top table and get involved in geopolitical affairs to try to shape the world to our advantage.
That horrifies many on the left. If we don’t, others happily will, to our detriment.
Well pointed out
We live in a different age now, instant news, live from anywhere on the planet, social media etc, people can be more aware of just how unstable the world is and defence spending become something of relevance to them.
True enough, unfortunately (and this isn’t a dig, per say) the general public can be somewhat fickle in the causes they feel passionate about en-mass. Often highly effected by the media.
Ukraine has of course very much focused the mind on why defence is important, though there’s precious little understanding at the need for long term defence investment, even when the enemy isn’t obvious (at that moment). Too many people think a military can simply be created at the drop of a hat sadly.
Agree totally and whilst there is an awful war being fought on European soil that has been caused by past mistakes and we have to deal with the present crisis with what we have.
It is very likely any NATO confrontation with Russia would turn into Armageddon and whilst Putin might want that given his delusions, I don’t think many others even in the Kremlin think the same.
Therefore an incremental increase in spending does make sense because to build up our forces to anything like many on here see as the minimum will take a decade and more to achieve.
On a personal note as I have witnessed when working with both the NHS and DFE a Government dept given a lot of extra cash in a short timescale just wastes a huge amount of the increase.
Agreed, but according to the BBC support sent to Ukraine is now included in defence sending, which means we send 2.3% of GDP on defence..!
However, whilst that may be a pain for another 12 to 18 months (hopefully the war will not last any longer than that) it will hopefully mean that the increase will stay in ‘defence’ except it will be spent on the UK armed forces.
What I am saying is that we could be at 2.3% by the end of next year beginning of 2024.
Fingers crossed.
Cheers CR
a well written piece Ross, nicely done.
Cheers mate 🙂
Defence may not win votes but it is the only way we guarantee our future.
Without credible forces we paint a target on oursewlves that eventually someone will take a pop at.
Amen to that.
One of my genuine fears is the fact it is inevitable that eventually the time WILL come when we must fight as a nation, and we might not be prepared.
War is one of the true consistencies throughout history, and the present and near future to me look very dicey. You only have to look at the Great War to know how quickly ‘regional’ events can slide into something catastrophic. Ukraine today, maybe Taiwan in 5 years….or a different situation that isn’t yet expected.
It would be nice (assuming it isn’t wasted of course!! ) However I will believe it when I see it!
Spending, like the Germans, is required NOW, not in 2030. If we do have to fight the Russians it will be long before 2030. This is not 1940s you cannot churn out typhoons and F35s like you could Spitfires and Hurricanes. Our leaders and their advisors saw those pictures coming from Wuhan in 2019 and they left it too late to act and the doing the same with Russia. Let’s bury our heads in the sand and let’s hope it does not happen! The sensible course would be to borrow a 100b and spend it re equipping now and next year for the next 10 year cut defence spending to slightly offset the extra borrowing cost. If the proverbial hits the fan it’s far easier to increase spending & expand the numbers in the arm forces if you have the kit available for them to fight with.
I do completely agree with you, but in the context of UK defence since the end of the Cold War….this is at least in the right direction, with likely real terms increases each year up to 2030. Notwithstanding any change of government.
Ok you issue the orders for the Kit now and spend your £100b on what exactly. as you dont have the people in place to put in them. Currently taking 12 months to get a New Car. UK has 26 F35s yet we only have 13/14 pilots, Typhoon Tranche 3 order is in place waiting for its new Radar, Chally 3 is in place, forget Ajax. Navy have new ships in-build.
So what you going to order, you have just borrowed £100b and cannot spend it. and the interest on that would eat before you could.
1/ if your info on pilots is true, then you spend some of it recalling pilots that have left in the last couple of years. Bring in limited conscription if necessary. 2/ Start ordering challengers and Ajax replacement today not some fantasy date off in never never land.3/ start replenishing those stocks of materials we have given the Ukrainians 4/ order 35a and beg the US to make it a priority so we get the next 30/40 of the production line. 5/ purchase a anti ship missile for the navy 6/ Order TODAY heavy artillery and rocket systems. I could go on. It will send a message to Vlad and certainly burying you head in the sand is no defence to a Russian missile.And that’s what we will be eating if we do not get our act together. Where there is a will…..
Don’t forget more P-8 Poseidons and Wedgetails
Do you mind me asking how do you know how many qualified F35 pilots we have?
that number can’t be correct Robert -13 F35 pilots? I imagine there’s a reasonable number in the training pipe as well?
Yes, thst seems very low, considering we have 617sqn, 207sqn OCU has 10 aircraft now, and 17 sqn OEU, with 809sqn the next frontline unit to form.
Thanks Robert , enjoy the weekend!
You too pal 👍
Program Stats
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35/f-35-global-partnership/f-35-united-kingdom.html
An example of how part of £100b could be spent is the case of the Type 26 Frigates, apparently BAE Systems offered to build all 8 for the price of 7 if the MOD paid all of the money up front. If that was indeed the case it would offer much better value for money to the taxpayer than the annual drip drip drip of instalments.
We could order an extra T31 and one more T26. And 3 more P-8’s
I too am curious about your stated number of trained F35B Pilots – i have read of a number which i won’t post on here but it was significantly more that the total of Aircraft so far delivered.
The extra money Germany is spending only brings them up to spending levels we have been at for years.
“Spending, like the Germans, is required NOW, not in 2030.”Have you read NATO’s latest Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries ?https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_197050.htm
Did you hear the speech by Ex Admiral West. By all means ignore what I say but I suggest you listen to what a professional ” soldier ” has to say on the subject. It’s a pity these senior military men do not make the truth clear when they are actually in their role and not wait until they are retired.
As far as NATO is concerned, in that link I provided, Germany is spending 1.4% of its GDP or $51bn on defence in 2022. The UK is spending 2.1% of its GDP or $71bn on defence.
So we don’t want to be like Germany, thanks.
Germany may in future years provide increased funding for its own military but until they do, and start spending it on defence, NATO won’t record it as being defence expenditure.
Spot on Stu. Too many see the headlines & think everything is hunky dory but people like us need to see the government deliver, or kick up a storm when they don’t.
Boris insisted on shaking everyones hands, got Covid & supercharged the pandemic sending infected OAPs back into care homes.Getting the big calls right is as valid as all in it together. Both are empty spin. Claps for nurses but kept devalueing their pay.
This does not make sense. If we need to raise defence spending because of the Russian threat, and we do, then we need to it now not by 2030. I do hope the PM isn’t using this to divert attention from a truly awful story which Private Eye have published. 😜
If it did kick off with Russia, it would be all over long before 2030. Realistically it’ll be the next 24 months if its going to happen.
100% agreed sir. It’ll be over so fast, there won’t be time for new kit. We’ll fight the next major conflict (I pray never happens) with the kit we have on hand. Not what we would’ve bought, fitted things ‘for but not with’ or what we’re developing.
Do say more about the Private Eye story.
I’d love to but George might not be too impressed. It’s all out there on Twitter.
BJ by name BJ by nature….?
Correct.
Jam tomorrow. How many times has that been promised since 1990? What (non defence) will be shoe horned into the 2.5% to meet the target?
Hi John, I share your general suspicion in terms of ‘jam tomorrow’ and possible ‘creative accounting’, though I would argue it is highly probably to see defence spending up in % terms each year going out to 2030, so should be some hard cash coming. In terms of how that figure is reached, we we know that the Government has been incl. defence spending in Ukraine as part of those figures thus far (personally I believe this should be coming out of the Foreign Office budget…but hey). However, once we par things back in that area, either because the conflict stabilises, or one party is defeated, then that money should be a bit of a windfall for core UK defence spending.
I remember looking at what a 4.5% increase to the MOD’s budget would do and it was a game changer. It was ramped up over 5 years as there’s no practical way to spend all that extra money in a year anyway; procurement, among other things, obviously takes time. Now we are talking about a much bigger number and the immediate reaction on this board is pessimistic. There are a lot more anti-West trolls on this board than a lot of people realize. My advice is to stop drinking their Kool Aid and take excellent news for what it is!
Agree 👍🏾
That would be true if it had suddenly been put up to 4% overnight but an increase to 2.5% is completely realistic when the uk military has such huge holes in it. Germans have just put theirs up from 1.5 to 2% and 100billion on top so it is doable.
Totally agree
But it is a long time to wait for 2030.
Joke
Just more meaningless bullshit from Boris.
Don’t allow your personal bias to cloud things.
Bullshit that could be worth 55bn for defence. If you fancy making the decisions, become an MP.
Yeah come back to me in 2030 and tell me what that’s worth
Do you want an increase or not? How many other Nato countries are paying over 2%? Not many.
You can say that about any future budget. It’s still considerable investment for defence.
When people have have finished their political tantrums…
The proposal is that 2.5% becomes the new NATO minimum for all members, rather than the current 2%. By announcing the U.K. is already committed to that target the idea is to encourage/ embarrass/ bounce those nations that still don’t meet the current 2% minimum to pull their fingers out.
Well that’s one way to ensure it can’t be rowed back on by future governments, unless of course they justify ever more costs as part of defence.
I was trying to work out what that means in £. Based on 2021 GDP it is £55bn I believe, but that is no different to what we spent in the year to March 2022. I’m guessing that is because of the 4 year uplift received last year.
I believe NATO defines what can and can’t be included in costs that can be described as being ‘defence’. Wise move to stop politicians inflating defence spending.
No way of telling what that means in £££s, as we don’t know that the GDP will be, nor do we know what the purchasing power for each £ will be by then. The longer the war in Ukraine goes on, the lower both of these will be however…
It’s not just Zelenskyy that wants this war over by the end of the year, I expect the majority of world leaders do to.
This government is apparently already including our support to Ukraine is being included in the defence spending, which is now counted as being 2.3% of GDP according to the BBC.
So in the short term I would suggest that British Armed forces are unlikely to benefit at all in the short term, however, if the war ends towards the end of next year it would be politically rather difficult not to transfer the funding to the MoD, at least in part initially… So may be, just may be, we’d see a siginificant increase to the MoD towards the end of next year or in 2024…
Cheers CR
Don’t say something considered and rational, it stops people from being hysterical and having suicidal tantrums about how bad everything is.
Gosh you’re right, totally forgot this is the internet rather than the real world 😉
Sean, I appreciate your sentiment, and there were interesting posts on equipment procurement and timelines needed, however, this is gesture politicking by Bluffer.
There are probably a host of missiles that could be bought in the short term not merely to replenish stocks but to add new items, e.g. NSM
Furthermore, many countries don’t even spend 2% now, let alone 2.5% in the future.
Finally, Bluffer will be out of office soon and won’t have the responsibility of seeing his pledges through.
If it was gesture politics then Jens Stoltenberg would’ve be involved with it. Boris could have simply made the announcement about the U.K. period, this is about raising the NATO minimum from 2%, which Jens has previously said should be considered a floor and not a ceiling.
As for being out of office soon, I doubt it. The rules of the 1922 would need to be written. And who would replace him? The backbench loons like Steve Baker would be as toxic as Corbyn was to Labour. Which leaves the Cabinet, none of which are breaking ranks because right now this is the most difficult period to be a Prime Minister since WW2 – with the exception of 1982.
Just because you really really want something, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
It’s not enough and it should’ve been done a long time ago and i’m so angry right now and I don’t believe it and it’s so unfair and you always do this and you said you love me and and and. Sorry. You guys always give me flashbacks to an ex I remember.
😁
Sounds like someone I knew a while ago. Probably her mother!☹️
Cheeky b…ard. 😂
🤣😂😆😁
Well I think we’ve learned one thing today. That for most of the contributors on this site Thursdays is their carers day off.
😆👍
Friday afternoon for me – NZ time!
Boris is one major British military defeat (maybe the sinking of one of the carriers) to becoming an ex-PM
You mean like how Churchill was replaced after the Fall of France and Dunkirk, or how Thatcher was replaced after the Sheffield was sunk…?
It’s one thing to hate a politician, it’s another to fantasise about the death of British servicemen as a way to remove them from office.
The Fall of France has its beginnings in the 1930’s before Churchill came to power. Britain won the Falklands War, so Thatcher is not held to blame for the sinking of British warships during the conflict. She could be held to blame for planned British defense cuts before the war.
Clearly you don’t understand the concept of analogy. I’ll make it simpler for you to understand, PMs don’t get replaced due to a tactical failure during a war.
PMs don’t get replaced due to a tactical failure during a war.
Maybe they should, if they try to micro-manage the battlefield.
That you for admitting you were wrong.
Or Churchill would never have been made PM in th first place.
Exactly! 👍🏻
She has been dead 30 years, i would blame your mother for not shutting her legs. but i am not that Bitter
Its a bad example really because Churchill wasnt meant to remain PM, it was an arrangement between Chamberlain, Halifax, Margesson and Churchill that Churchill would be a temporary sacrifice to take the political flak and allow Halifax who was the Conservative party leader and favoured candidate of Labour, Conservatives and King to resign his seat in the lords and win a by-election.
Er no, now you’re just rewriting history 🤦🏻♂️
War cabinet crisis, May 1940 – Wikipedia
Thanks for posting that link, because it proves that you were completely wrong in what you said in your previous post 🤣
*Chamberlain Conservative Party Leader until October 1940, Halifax was the intended successor as PM.
Hi Watchzero. It’s interesting to ponder how things may have played out if Halifax got the ticket as opposed to WC. I imagine he’d have taken up Hitler peace offer.
what a sad bitter person you must be to want 800 plus crew sunk, because a Tory is prime minister, DUE TO THE FACT your own party FAILED TO SHOW UP. talk about wanting a medal for taking part. does Buttercup want a recount to see how many Corbyn LOST BY.
I would take no pleasure in the death of 800 plus crew.
My family has fought in the 2nd Boar War, WW1 and WW2 and not all returned home.
What I do not like is doing defense on the cheap as to me this is what Boris is trying to do.
I use the example of a RN carrier sunk since this is in the fictional book, 2017: War With Russia by General Sir Richard Shirreff.
The carrier was sunk by a Russian submarine because the RN did not have enough escorts to protect the carrier. Escorts were being recalled from around the world, but the PM could not wait.
The carrier was ordered into the Baltic Sea by the PM where it was sunk.
The Russian-Ukraine War has been going on now for 5 months, what has Boris done to build UK defenses?
I think you will be more appreciated over at the guardian chap!
I am not a Leftest!
Some would argue that we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan so maybe we are talking about our third military defeat?
It should be 2.5% now and 3% by the end of the decade. People are getting worried now, defence is starting to become a vote winner. My 3 sons are all saying at school they’re asking if there is gonna be a war. He’s totally lost me now
Pretty meaningless when the party in power could have changed, potentially more than once, before 2030.
Exactly.
An interesting thread to read, on this
https://mobile.twitter.com/AndyNetherwood/status/1542519281316835328
Complete cobblers.
I hope, that if Labour are elected, they uphold this pledge.
To be fair to the current government and I’m no fan of any of them inflation is the enemy at the moment until that gets back under control the extra spending will be irrelevant.
Not so sure. There has been a lot of talk from the NATO summit about establishing a safe corridor to Odessa, so that grain carriers can be used to export Ukraine’s grain etc. There has been some inklings that Russia would agree to a humanitarian corridor. But there are so many sea mines off Ukriane’s coast, that clearing them will take weeks or even months. Ukraine would want NATO guarantees that if they give over the maps of the mines locations, Odessa wouldn’t then be invaded. Which means NATO would have to provide its defence. Which would start a very uneasy precedence. What if Russia thought NATO was helping Ukraine militarily rather than just giving them supplies? It would only take a missile hitting a NATO ship to make the situation quickly escalate!
Problem is with a guy like Putin he would fire a few off at a NATO ship and then just lie about it being the Ukranians taking pot shots.
Someone mentioned scrapping RN minesweepers… er.
NATO have a Standing NATO mine sweeping group… perhaps we should augment the force.
In the context of what we find ourselves in, this announcement really is not good enough. Not even close.
Waste of time making the announcement. The world is falling apart and we are going to do next to nothing about it until 2030. Great. Every time I read an article on defence these days something is going to be done about everything BUT, and it’s a big BUT”😉not until 2030, 2035, 2050…Star Trek, a future generation.
Look on the bright side, T32 will have warp drive.
Thanks David. I hope to Klingon to see them in service.👽
Given the parlous state of the UK economy and the massive difficulties of fulfilling any promise outside the current year its easy to make a promise for the end of the decade knowing you won’t be around to take the wrap when it’s missed. I believe the revised target 2.5% of GDP by NATO is currently a WAG and is there just move others closer to the current 2% target. NATO needs to conduct an urgent in depth analysis of the actual threats now posed by Russia, the positive and negative impact of modern weaponry, the rate of ammunition usage and necessary logistic support for a sustained campaign. Only then can it identify the cost and likely National contributions necessary. What is certainly true is that the Threat Analysis supporting the recent UK Integrated Defence Review was flawed (too much emphasis on cyber (cheaper) at the cost of mass (expensive) when both are needed) and all outstanding actions against that review should be suspended pending the NATO clarification of the real needs.
I see HMS Echo is decommissioned.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2022/june/30/220630-hms-echo-decommissioning
Oh! Did not think she was that old?
20 years old. In favour of autonomous systems blah blah blah. One less vessel for for actual real people to get experience on but that’s the future apparently
Is the rationale for unmanned mine clearance that it is risky doing it with manned ships? When was the last time a manned MCMV was sunk or damaged during mine clearance?
A long long time ago. You still need to get the new kit to the location to search and clear, so how are they doing it? No real units to do it and you would never use a fighting ship for such a role, or it will soon become a victim. Cheaper units that can carry such would be better, North Sea Support vessels are just the job. But the accountants just see savings and not actual capability. Once a World leader 🙁
So this unmanned approach is purely to save money? Are any other nations going this way? Always best to follow the US lead regarding new ways of doing things – if it does not work out for them, we have lost nothing.
I still think we should have joined Belgium & Holland. They get 6x new motherships each, from which to launch unmanned mine clearance boats.
National Flagship ?
I was looking at Ocean Infinity who took over the Vosper Thornycroft site in Southampton. I wonder if they will be part of the new wave that will take over from the likes of Scott and Echo.
Yes, impressive technology. The drones are here 😊
From the RN web site..
“The Future Military Data Gathering programme will see the use of more modern equipment, autonomous systems deployed and the introduction of new survey craft later this year.
The Royal Navy’s hydrographers and meteorological experts will continue to serve aboard ships across the globe but will also deploy in smaller teams around the UK and overseas.
It will also see the Royal Navy work even closer with UK Hydrographic Office”
Really depends on what GDP is over the next 8 years, go into a recession and thats going to be 2.5% of a smaller pot of money.
a) commitment for whoever’s in #10/11 then
b) plainly insufficient unless adopted now
c) GDP falling: we’re apparently already at 2.3%, in short term accounting, supporting Ukraine.
So a cut in spending in real terms with inflation at 10% as they will be including far higher wages by then.
Some pretty unbelievable comments in this thread considering this is positive news. Devil is in the detail as always, but this could release some pretty serious money for defence in the coming years. We are not at war with Russia, and we are playing a leading role in preventing a war with Russia and the defence of Ukraine considering the political constraints. We are part of NATO, a cog in a much larger machine.We have capabilitys available today and coming in the future that most of our allies do not posess. We are not going to build a 150k Army, or go back to 25 frontline line fast jets sqns, so some of you might as well forget those fantasys. Technology and capability has come on a very long way. And the UK will play a leading role in whatever the future holds in defence of the EU or further afield. Lessons from Ukraine are being poured over by defence planners as we discuss, and the coming Months/years will be about getting the right kit we need. But NATO as a collective needs to up it’s defence spending, not just the UK. We are stronger together. But even today, we have some world beating capability, and most important of all, the best trained and professional Men and Women. 🇬🇧
I think I’d term myself cautiously optimistic.
What I’m pessimistic about is the fantasy admirals and generals who’ll start giving it big licks and tell us all about their dream orbats that’ll totally work now.
What that man said 👏🏻
🏴🇬🇧
👍 Thanks.😀
I think a lot of people are so used to rhetoric and using recycled money and promises to look like something is being done leaves people very mistrusting of grand announcements by Politicians like Johnson. For me it’s all about outcomes. If we see some meaning outcomes and increased capability I will cheer, but an announcement of 2.5% by 2030 on its own is meaningless, better recruitment, maintaining deployable capabilities and adding capability is the only metric that’s worth anything. I’ve sat in audiences when ministers of state have made “ today I can announce” statements and they never come to anything.
Time will tell. But it’s still a positive statement, even if we don’t have any details as yet. This boost could make projects like Tempest more likely see the light of day. And we did get a considerable increase just last year.
Yes, well said.
Oh, modal verbs… love ’em
“…could…”
Enough said.
Well let’s see how much cash the forces get.
Come on BJ the head of the Army is telling you more investment is needed and your defence Minster plus other MPs if ever a time to do it it’s now. 💂💂💂💰💰💰
Boris will be gone in the next 2 years hopefully replaced by somebody who will actually take defence seriously. By 2030 is pathetic considering we need a massive increase right now.
Yes, I want Boris gone, but fear his replacement could be worse.
Talk is cheap and we have at least one election before 2030. By 2030 we are going to need at least 3% if things keep going the way they are at the moment.
I think some of you need to get a grip. An increase in defence spending is announced but it’s the end of the world. No other government department has had 2 increases in less than a year.
Exactly. Some people’s mindsets are still firmly in the 80’s.
No, the mindsets are in the here and now with a lying, convicted PM, who… lies.
The Convict has no credibility.
Tobias Ellwood for PM!
I’m no Boris fanboy but he hasn’t been convicted of anything. A fixed penalty is not a criminal conviction.
I doubt Mr Ellwood would even make the shortlist let alone be appointed by the party. Jeremy Hunt is the best bet I think. Boring, perhaps, but maybe we all need that at the moment. He’d have to increase the defence budget too given his past comments.
Come 2030 2.5% of GDP will be worth 30 bob and a chicken and that will probably have the flu!!
Not read all the comments on this stuff so apologies if someone else has said similar. Seeing as how Russia has been so gash at this whole warry thing, I can see the US leaving a war in Europe to the Europeans (while still waving the nukes about if required) and concentrating on the Pacific theatre. From their point of view it would make sense so possibly us Europeans have come to the same conclusion and realised we’d better up our game.
The Russians have taken a sore one so are probably unlikely to be able to invade anyone else in the short term so we do have time to counter things rather than relying on the US. If mainland Europe can get their shit in one sock and ween themselves off Russian gas/oil then it would give us even more time to get our act together. At least that’s how I’d prefer it ‘went down’, because the Russians have been so woeful the alternative is to treat them as a joke and pay lip service to it and talk big now and hope that by 2030 its all been forgotten about.
There really should not be a need for the US to lead a European war. Look at the combined wealth of Europe and we should be comprehensively beating whatever conventional forces Russia can muster. That we can’t is down to lame leaders who frankly take advantage of their US ally.
And then leaves us completely dependent on the US for defence. If they don’t like our policies then they can withdraw support.
Not to mention thousands, maybe tens of thousands of defence-industry jobs here in the UK will go kaput, and we will lose out in billions in defence exports every year.
I’d rather us not be dependent on any of them.
It makes sense in some cases to buy off the shelf but to buy everything from the US, or anyone else, is lunacy.
In the end it does not work like that. Spending money on U.K. products, increases the tax take and GDP which means we have more money to spend in the future. Even if a U.K. product is more expensive by say 20% it still works out better value and cheap than given billions to another nations tax and revenue base ( it’s why the NHS only really costs about 60-70% of what we pay for it, as A good portion of the money that treasury hands to the nhs is given back in a couple of months as tax take through nhs pension, national insurance, income tax with. and then all the indirect taxation like VAT, it’s the same with buying U.K. ships and aircraft etc).
Well we may have just seen one benefit/ Outcome RFA Argus will now not be decommissioned in 2024 but will instead be keep until 2030 when a direct replacement will be found. That means they are not removing the Maritime Role 3 capability or the flight training role.
Lost Echo though.
Is she gone for good DM , or temporary laid up?
Decommisioned. Ships have come back from that, like the B1 Rivers, but not many.
Thank you Jon
Good news. Thxs for the post.
3% is needed immediately. I am afraid this is very cynical of the PM who knows he will not be in power in 8 years time.
the country has benefited from the peace dividend for years now and it’s time to reinvest in more peace, and the good news is it won’t cost us 4 or 5% as it did during the Cold War.
the other thing that is generally unnoticed is how much defence spending benefits the poorest parts of our country. I have personally benefited from being part of the military and believe it changed the trajectory of my life for the better.
in real terms exactly what amount of money are we talking about.
[ 0.5% ] of how many billions per year.
anybody care to tell??
2.5% of GDP equates to approx. £50 billion per year. So looking at an increase of around £6 billion.
I think its £55bn based on our 2021 GDP of £2.2 trillion, an increase of around £10bn a year. If this is delivered incrementally then it can make a big difference.
I can’t see any other way than it being delivered incrementally; raising it by perhaps a billion or so a year each year.
Otherwise it’s a £10 billion increase in one go, which will be difficult to actually spend.
I just hope it gets spent on things we need now rather than on jam tomorrow.
I daresay that the increase will really just plug the budget gaps that the mythical “efficiency savings” never does. We may get a few good news stories with programs accelerated and a little more mass but nothing substantial. It should prevent further cuts though.
And even that will be welcome.
Indeed it would. If the increase is followed through we might actually see significant benefit from 2026 onwards after the 4 year “bump” is over. It is jam tomorrow but better than where we are now. If we can get NATO to commit to 2.5% as the new target then it will be much harder for future governments to row back.
It’s always Jam tomorrow, but could be worse, it could be no hope at all. There is always hope.
thanks.
So the budget will rise to 2.5GDP by 2030… after the Army has suffered more cuts, the tanks have been melted down, ships and aircraft have been scrapped off before their time leaving a weaker Army (it’s not good for much now anyway) and ‘holes’ in other defence areas. Typical typical tories.
The general prevailing view that a 2.5% gdp defence spend is required. This commitment requires a re set. This needs to be a bi partisan commitment- legislate and MAKE the houses(s) endorse it.
Before you all start bemoaning this suggestion, Australia for many years has successfully maintained such a bi partisan (un legislated though) approach. Neither party cuts. It can be done and in my view is critical in today’s geo political climate.
The truth however, is that this will require funding to pay the piper. I note that in WW2, The chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood) imposed a wartime super tax on excessive company profits. Perhaps time to revisit this policy?
It’s a personal view, but I have watched the global race to the bottom as nations reduce corporates tax thresholds. That cannot end well. The hypocrisy of this is self evident with high earning individuals pay Super income tax thresholds , but not Corporate entities.
Possibly I’m wrong, but with a long term budget increase could we not increase the numbers of T45 and Astute successors etc to bring the unit cost down meanwhile increasing personnel by the end of the decade for an overall increase?. In the meantime it would be good to see a lump sum to increase stocks just incase the worst happens.
Perfectly feasable yes – the Type 83 and SSN(R) are far enough down the line that any increase in numbers could be factored in, but the downside to that would be a lot could happen in that time frame regarding the World situation and the likelyhood of changes to the UK Govt which always has the power to reverse decisions previously made.
I suppose we all live in joke. Thank you
I don’t think that this is in reality a new commitment. Rather,in the light of the doubts expressed by the NAO about assumptions in the 10 year equipment plan, it is what we will have to spend just to deliver what we have already committed to.
There are some real difficulties to be resolved-
What is to be done about the Ajax programme? Cancellation and replacement or a full fix of the existing vehicle will inevitably need additional funds
How much additional funding will be needed to make fuller use of the carriers, whether by more F35s or some drone based adaptation?
How much will be needed for Tempest after 2025?
None of these have committed funding in place.
So 2.5% will at best allow us to avoid further cuts in numbers or capabilities..
Very much this. Every defence review in recent memory has assumed efficiency savings can be found to keep the budget in check, whereas the reality is that never happens and is just kicking the can down the road. With this increase we will hopefully be able to move forward with the programs that are in the pipeline with no further cuts, incremental increases in orders for key kit and stocks, and accelerating some programs such as Boxer and new kit for the RA.
Reading Boris’s statement again, it seems even clearer that he is saying that commitments already made will mean 2.5% by 2030. I don’t think its deceptive, just a statement of fact. So no new funds.
“What is to be done about the Ajax programme? Cancellation and replacement or a full fix of the existing vehicle will inevitably need additional funds.”
I feel tempted to find a replacement alternative reccon vehicle, that would be air transportable 20t max,
maybe from South Korea?
Even if the Ajax contract had run smoothly, it is an astonishingly expensive programme. Only 245 out of 589 vehicles will be the full fat Ajax variant with Istar package and CTA 40. The remainder look much simpler. So why have we contracted to pay nearly£10m per vehicle?
I agree we need to reset and get a lighter reconnaissance vehicle. To me Ajax has never made sense.
Boxer, Ajax, Watchkeeper, MoD love a very expensive solution.
Portugal has come up with a drone carrier. Perhaps with more cash we can get something similar.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/06/portuguese-navy-unveils-new-drone-mothership-project/
A ski-jump? Can the turboprop Grey Eagles or Reapers really take advantage of a ski-jump? I’d think it would need a greater power to weight ratio.
I like the translation.
“drone mothership project dubbed “plataforma naval multifuncional” (multifunctional naval platform)”
It’s nearly as good as listening to Macron, Sholz, and Draghi on the train to Ukraine talking about how Macron got the Emperor’s Bedroom and the others the hoi-polloi cubicles, and having to do it in English.
Not bad news for anyone invested in defence stocks. Which is most people with a pension.
Seems a good start would be 24x Typhoon, 3x Poseidon and 2x Wedgetail. Then maybe a couple more T-26. And if Santa is very kind another Astute. Though logistically that boat has probably sailed already. Oh and maybe a way for RN ships to actually attack something in the near future.
Habitual liar promises something eight years in the future…. how is this presented as news/going to happen ffs
We are one of the biggest defence exporters in the world. We should not need to be buying much foreign kit, except of course stuff we cannot make ourselves. If the Ajax contract had gone to BAE we would have had a good result. Our issue is poor procurement decisions more so than lacking national manufacturing capability.
Ha…. really. Johnson can’t keep promises for 24hrs in advance let alone 8 years!
None of those countries exclusively use US kit, they each have domestic manufacturing for some areas of defence. Japan and South Korea are exploring their own 6th gen aircraft options. It is also good to have friends elsewhere to share tech and keep alliances going, not to mention local jobs.
With the way politics in the US is going I am not sure we should have all our eggs in that one basket.
So we have a war in Europe NOW and the UK defence spending will be up to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. Isn’t that a little late? Not only that, even Labour is calling for an immediate increase! Is Labour now more defence orientated than the Tories? If so the world has truly been turned on its head! Surely even the PM realises that deterrence isn’t achieved with hot air.
Assume for instance that an increase is granted immediately. What could that be spent on that would make any difference to the war in Ukraine? It takes years to deliver military programs. All we can do is provide the kit we can to the Ukrainians, which is already happening to the extent it can without risking WW3.
It is very easy to demand spending when in opposition.
I’m no fan of Labour, but let’s remember the deepest cuts of the last 35 years have taken place under Conservative administrations.
My personal view is this is nothing but hot air, no emergency SDSR, no money now, just a vague promise of gravey tomorrow, with the can kicked down the road by two parliaments.
Typical political manoeuvring, doodling about, while Rome burns.
Better it comes late than not at all. Eight years will roll around quickly enough. I’d like to see us build up to 3% given the current climate, but you have to get to 2.5% first. Poland’s immediate jump to 3% is impressive, but that’s too rich for UK politicians who have been used to continual defence cuts since before most of them were born.
Perhaps Someone could explain why the Ajax at £3.5 billion is twice what the Americans are paying for 504 GD ASCOD based light tanks at $1.14 billion, their must have been a lot of consultants ?
The USA obviously has more clout regarding spending power which it can use to its advantage when in negotiations,but Vehicle wise its a case of Apples vs Oranges,the Ajax is basically a bespoke Recce asset with lots of Tech onboard,think of it as a Rivet Joint on Tracks.
The contract is for 96 vehicles(initial low rate production.) Still cheaper than Ajax though and based on the same Ascod platform. The Ajax contract is for 589 vehicles at a fixed price of £5.5b.
The Ajax programme is £5.5 billion.
Peter S says that $1.14 is just for the first 96 (ILRP)
The delta between US and UK programmes must be due to a more complex design for Ajax, the wasteful way in which manufacture is done by GDUK and rampant profiteering. Don’t think consultants fees is the issue.
Cautiously optimistic.
I’d assume this means incremental increases in defence spending, as simply dropping an extra £6-10billion on the MoD’s laps in 2030 won’t be of much benefit.
Hopefully this goes to actually benefit the forces now rather than investing in projects for 15-12 years’ time. Jam tomorrow is no good if we have no bread today.
Ideally it would go on:
With the 4 year bump announced last year + spending on the war in Ukraine, we are not far off 2.5% now. Any real increase will come in once that 4 year bump is over, so around 2026.
From Apr 2025, the next settlement period.
Indeed but as Daniele said above, there is hope. The fact that the PM stood up at a NATO submit and asked for the min to be set at 2.5% means it is much harder (but not impossible) for him or a future PM to go back on.
Spending on the Ukraine does not count against the routine defence budget.
That is an emergency.
The government is including it in our defence figures, hence why they said we are spending 2.3% of GDP.
My understanding was that the £4.1 billion a year defence was given last year took it up to 2.3%.
The economy will have contracted sufficiently that the current spending rate will equal 2.5% of GDP by later this year. Boris is a genius.
If that indeed happens then we could have expected cuts. This announcement should at the very least prevent that.
good one Luke – made my day!😁
Minimal progress when the writing is on the wall western democracy faces a grave threat here & now. We need an immedeate rise to 2.5% within a year or two & 3-3.5% by the end of the decade. BJ continues to lie to the piblic, all bluster & spin. We need a serious capable PM & cabinet for extremely dangerous times.
Boris seems soley concerned with his “career” but fails to do the work necessary.
Maybe the big money, big buiseness cabal that fund the Tories aren’t too disturbed by the prospect of brutal authoratarian states creating empires of despotic repression.
Frank, it will just the same with Labour, they will latch onto the public’s current anger and amplify it, promising 10% pay raises and anything else that gets them over the finish line…
Bottom line, sod all for defence under labour.
Well stated words over actions is all Boris is interested in. Worryingly far to few throughout the West understand the threat and no doubt once the cost of maintaining Ukraines defence and indeed the defence of others in the east of Europe bites one can see short-termism will become even greater with this delusional belief such conflict will hit us, Europe needs to get its act together double quick. Equally worrying is the situation in the US where cohesion at best is under threat ignorance of how world events increasingly spreading throughout the public and problems with their political and military thinking. This opinion piece very much concerns me but I think is pretty accurate in my perception the defence seems to be more about profits for constituencies, power brokers and businesses relating to that political influence than actually facing up to requirements, while big words again hide developing realities..
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/07/is-the-u-s-military-destined-for-a-dusty-death/
China will be a big problem by 2030!
Perhaps we should not let them buy up our companies on national securities grounds ?
I agree!
Well that’s the Venison, for the Wardroom taken care of ,now where’s money for Equipping the frontline coming from
Very good news. It is going in the right direction.Up.
I suspect it will be closer to 3% by 2030. Reasoning; Russia has trashed the Non Proliferation Treaty and that will make it harder to persuade other countries that they don’t need to keep a nuclear arsenal to dissuade neighbour[s] from stealing territory from them by force. We’ll see.
Tory 2019 manifesto was that the budget was to be increased “by at least 0.5% above inflation every year of the new parliament”. This has been scrapped.
Foreign Office & MOD both calling for an increase (If modest) now, yet nothing until 2030 despite being in ‘unprecedented times’?
Ajax debacle and our infantry numbers too low. We do need this money as we are in a transitory stage at the worst of times.
Yes, Britain contributes 2% of GDP, but things like pensions have been added into the formula to scue the real spend. Countries like Russia/China where wages are lower, those countries have to be spending considerably more in ‘real’ terms.
I think everyone on here wants best for our UK armed forces and hope politicians start taking it seriously. They are quick enough to vote for a pay rise, submit expenses or take advantage of the cheap alcohol and kick backs they recieve as MP’s.
Hi All,
Interesting points made by all.
I am hoping that defence gets the necessary budget uplift that it needs to equip our military with the kit and pay that it needs. IMHO we should always pray for the best but prepare for the worst.
Interesting article here about historic and future MOD spending https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8175/CBP-8175.pdf
Puts the figures into real pounds spent rather than GDP percentages.
By that time NATO could be asking for 3% GDP for defence that s another 7 years away a lot can change what we need is extra money now and coming years AND STOP THE PLANNED CUTS HE TALKS most of the time hot air and can’t be trusted