In a recent meeting of the Scottish Affairs Committee, significant concerns were raised about whether the UK’s current fleet of P-8A patrol aircraft is sufficient to meet expanded security demands.

The committee met on Monday, 5 June 2023, to discuss issues related to the North Atlantic and the High North.

Among the attendees were Chair Pete Wishart, Christine Jardine, and James Heappey MP, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Jardine posed a question about the Royal Air Force’s ability to meet increasing security requirements with its current numbers of P-8A patrol aircraft and E-7 Wedgetail aircraft.

In response, James Heappey MP stated, “I think we have enough P-8 for the job that we designed the P-8 force to do, which is submarine surveillance in the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and contributing to the NATO north Atlantic mission.”

However, Heappey acknowledged that the UK might need more P-8A aircraft or require other P-8 operating nations to boost their contributions should UK strategic ambitions grow.

He said, “Very obviously, if our ambition grows beyond that, either we need to say to the US and other P-8 operating nations, ‘Can you step up your contribution to the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, because we want to go off and do some stuff over the Sea of Japan?’ or we have to get more P-8.”

How many is enough?

Back in 2018, evidence submitted to the Defence Select Committee argues that seven additional P-8 Poseidon aircraft should be acquired, bringing the total fleet to 16 aircraft.

Written evidence submitted by Air Vice-Marshal Andrew L Roberts (Retd) states that:

“SDSR 15 proposed that nine P-8 Poseidon MPA be acquired. At the time, the P-8 was the only MPA on the market capable of meeting the UK’s needs in a reasonable timescale.  Given the urgency of filling this acknowledged gap in the Defence Programme, the Government was undoubtedly justified in selecting that aircraft without going out to competition. However, capable though the P-8 may be, the number of aircraft planned is undoubtedly inadequate to fulfil even the highest priority tasks likely to be assigned to the force in tension and hostilities.”

The ten primary tasks for which MPA are likely to be required in peacetime, tension and hostilities are, according to the submission:

    1. Protection of the UK’s national strategic deterrent.
    1. Protection of naval forces – in particular, the new aircraft carriers.
    1. Protection against threats to commercial and other shipping, including counter-piracy.
    1. Surveillance of, and action against, threats to trans-continental under-sea communications cables.
    1. Protection of the UK EEZ (including oil rigs and shore facilities) against potential threats, assistance in counter-terrorism operations and, possibly, fishery protection post-BREXIT.
    1. Protection of overseas territories, including the Falklands.
    1. Operations in such areas as the Caribbean in support of counter-drug-running operations.
    1. Support to Special Forces.
    1. Gathering electronic, acoustic and photographic intelligence.
    1. Fulfilling the UK’s international obligations for Search and Rescue in aid of shipping and aircraft in distress out to longitude 30 degrees west, in accordance with the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, 1979.

Table 1 below shows the operational coverage which was possible with the original Nimrod MR2 force of 21 aircraft and compares this with that possible with nine P-8 Poseidon MPA. The table also shows what established fleets of 12 or 15 P-8s could achieve.

21 Nimrod MR2

No of sustained ASW patrols

9 P-8

No of sustained ASW patrols

12 P-8

No of sustained ASW patrols

15 P-8

No of sustained ASW patrols

40084 [2]6 [3]7 [4]
60074 [2]5 [2]6 [3]
80063 [1]4 [2]5 [3]
90053 [1]4 [2]5 [3]
1,00043 [1]4 [2]4 [2]
1,10042 [1]3 [1]4 [2]
1,2003*2 [1]3 [1]4 [2]
1,3002*2 [1]3 [1]3 [2]
1,4002*1 [1]2 [0]3 [2]
1,5001*1*2*[0]2*[1]
1,60001*1*[0]2*[1]
1,80001*1*[0]1*[0]
2,0000000

 

The submission also argues that in terms of sensors and weapons, the overall capability of the P-8, as an MPA, is not dissimilar to that of the Nimrod MRA4, both representing a very considerable increase in ASW capability over the Nimrod MR2.

However, the maximum flight time of the P-8 is only about 10 hours, allowing it to remain on station for slightly less than five hours at 1,000 nm from base. Although the P-8 is fitted with an air-to-air refuelling system, this is incompatible with the probe-and-drogue system used in the UK’s A330 Voyager tankers.

The conclusions made are;

  • The planned force of only nine P-8 Poseidon aircraft would be insufficient to guarantee concurrent continuous cover for both the UK deterrent and other vital tasks, including CVA protection, in tension and hostilities.
  • To remedy this situation, seven additional P-8s should be acquired, bringing the total fleet to 16 aircraft, noting that any additional aircraft would need to be ordered before Q2, 2019.
  • Flying booms should be fitted to the RAF’s A330 Voyager tankers.
  • Consideration should be given to establishing aircrew above the planned 2:1 crew-to-aircraft ratio, if necessary by making use of Reserve/Auxiliary aircrew.
  • Were the P-8 force’s responsibilities to be extended to include responsibility for overland surveillance, additional P-8s should be acquired as necessary.
George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

247 COMMENTS

  1. Finally they have got it into their thick tory skulls ,16 planes minimum are needed ,the old fleet of nimrod had I believe had 36 aircraft ,useless government of tories will be gone ,how much damage to our armed forces and national security have they done ,criminal bxxxxxds look at the channel that alone speak volumes of insecurity, more planes ,ships and other assets are needed ,well Mr starmer and Labour had quickly readdress the issues ,OUR COUNTRY’S SECURITY IS AT STAKE ,I PRAY TO GOD I WILL NEVER EVER SEE A TRAITEROUS TORY GOVERNMENT IN POWER AGAIN, BOUGHT BY BLOOD MONEY AND CORRUPTION,

      • How is it a load of rubbish, truth hurts the damage done both tory and Labour, tories are more interested in fxxxxxg bankers and making money, sunak was caught out recently about armed forces commitments totally blanked a veteran of 25years ex para I believe after asking a question about the disaster of cuts over the decades,I proud to back our veterans are you?

        • At least now you say “damage done by both Tory and Labour”
          Which is correct, balanced, and they’ve both been awful, and I agree.
          On Nimrod however, and how the force declined from 40 plus to 12 MRA4 planned, it should be noted that this happened pre the blasted Tories in 2010, planned numbers, 21, 18, 16, 12, 9, before cancellation.
          2 of the 3 Sqns that operated Nimrod, 120, 201, and 206, had already been disbanded by 2010, along with the OCU, 42 R Sqn.

          But yes, we badly need more P8.

          • Hi Daniele, just a quick note to say thank you for a couple of previous replies on another thread. I’ve lost the article link and can’t always reply via my phone. Appreciate all your knowledge and detail. Thanks.

          • Hi Quentin. I believe the RAAF have an additional pair of P8s on order? That affords a healthy 14 airframes ?

          • Evening Klonkie, I had to check myself. Looks like it’s currently 12 but I think there’re options for 2-4 more. Big country, big space to patrol. NZ maybe be small but your surroundings are huge too. Any talk of drones for NZ to complement your P8’s? Hope 4 is enough.

          • As a Kiwi,I believe we should never have retired the combat capability. Unfortunately, I cannot foresee us reinstating a jet combat fleet – mores the pity.

          • Maybe a 1-2 more P-8s, some drones and even an E7 might be more useful. Have to say I’d like to have seen an ANZAC squadron of AU and NZ pilots on Hornets or F35s, and joint sub crews to. Just for NZ to keep up skills in some areas that maybe needed by them in the future.
            They could also buy sone AU Taipan’s and Tigers to bolster their helo fleet and get a more substantial LHPD than Canterbury.
            But I have absolutely no influence in anything. We’ll have to leave it to Klonkie and his connections. Lol 😁

          • Cheers Quentin ,couldn’t agree more re the NZ P8 fleet. 4 seem a little on the light side. Sadly, no news on a possible drone buy.

          • True Nick , but they do have a massive maritime area of interest, Here in little old NZ, we have begun onboarding our new fleet of 4 (yes, 4) P8s!

          • Evening Daniele, yes, thanks again for all your knowledge. I lost the article thread when on my phone. I’ll have a squizz over the Kings birthday long weekend here.

          • Labour also screwed up. In their defence though back in the day there was reason to be more optimistic about security and defence, the world was more settled. I can understand the reasoning they worked to whilst not agreeing with the decisions made.

            In the day of the self serving money grabbing tories they continued to make devastating cuts when all the evidence showed world stability declining and serious concerns arising over the likes of Russia. Their actions are totally indefensible.

          • That, Marked, I can agree wholeheartedly with. Finally!

            Though most cuts occurred pre financial crisis, so using that as an excuse isn’t justifiable either.

            You could also say the Tory 2010 cuts were also at a time when the China Russia issues had not arisen, but were still devastating.

            The proof of the pudding will be with the actions of the next Labour government.

          • The ‘good news’ is that our political parties are at least starting to sing from the same hymn sheet. The ‘bad news’ is that only seems to occur when they all believe that there is imminent Bad News on the horizon. Such is life.

          • I suppose, if we hurry with regard to the E-7s, the taxpayer may get the two radars we’ve reputedly already been billed for, each in an airframe. Be kinda nice….

          • 38 Nimrod MR1 were originally ordered, followed by an order for an additional 8. A number (8?) were then taken out of service for conversion to the AEW role. I believe these were later scrapped. In addition there were 3 very different R1 models.

          • That’s right David. I recall 11 for some reason for AEW Nimrod, might be wrong there.
            The R1s were replaced with 51 with RC135.
            We needed that many Nimrod as the Soviet Northern Fleets SSN and SSK assets were numerous.
            The number of subs facing us is much reduced, though 9 does not allow for any expeditionary or overland contribution. We need more.

          • Yes, it was 3 prototype AEW and 8 production AEW. So reduced the MR1 fleet to 35. 9 Poseidon is nowhere near enough. And don’t get me started on the risible number of Wedgetails………

        • David, your arguments are true, but for goodness sake type more slowly and use some punctuation. You may find it frustrating but it will lend a huge amount of weight to your postings, and there are many on this forum who agree with much of what you say, but we have to work extremely hard to get to the meat!
          And I seem to remember from many years back that the original requirements for the ill fated Nimrod MRA4 was for 22 aircraft, and in those days we weren’t planning an Indo Pacific tilt.

          • Hi Nick, I guess it’s difficult to determine what the ideal P8 number should look like. Under AUKUS, it’s likely the RAF and RAAF would collaborate re your point on the IndoPacific tilt.

            Still, 9 does seem very much on the light side!

        • You blamed the Tories in your initial post now you blame labour as well! Agreed, both are bad but please do research and look at the previous defence review under Labour, as bad and worse than the Tories! Don’t let your politics colour your view in regard to defence, as it shows weakness and a political agenda which surpasses the defence issue! Cheers!

          • Ah, so there it is. THAT, is what annoys me and made me lose my rag.

            It is exactly that – political agenda.

            The reality is both have been God awful hopeless and “bloody Tories it’s all their fault” posts wind me up, as it shows either total ignorance of what has happened to the military in this country or willfully looking the other way.

          • As usual my friend a sensible response. If we’re interested in defence we have to weigh it up with and against political views.🙂

        • Both as bad as each other MRA4 signed up on labour and couldn’t get its far arse of the deck. correctly cancelled as it didn’t work and BAEs sucking on that golden tit. Word is, that RAF doesn’t have pilots for the nine we have. RAF want booms on the tankers when they dont know how to opperate. ITS JUST GREED from some top brass idiot who hasnt looked at the recruitment numbers or pilots trained.

      • Bit of rant I’ll grant you. But he is right. The Tories have been running the country as if it were a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory party from which the maximum profit is to be extracted regardless of employees, the environment with capital investment sourced from foreign shareholders some of whom are ironically nationalised companies of the own countries. Hypocrisy of the highest order. Selling out your own country.

        • I don’t agree with you. The rants on this forum, including yours, are all from the left wing – Tory bashing. Obviously profit is a dirty word to you but you will find that profit will feed into your pension fund if you have bothered to have one. So, from my point of view you are a hypocrite along with others of your persuasion.

          • Don’t be daft. No-one is saying profit is a dirty word. What I am saying is that the Tories have been running the country as if it was a private members club. Their idea of levelling up is everyone joins your club. Life is not like that, and public service means you work for all the people of the country whether they agree with you or not, not just the club members. Evgeny Lebedov getting a say in how this country is governed is outrageous.

          • I didn’t vote for Corbyn. My reading of him was that he is probably a nice guy but a broken man. As they say its not the age its the mileage. He would have been far too tolerant of Marxist entryism and this would have posed a threat to the country. On the domestic front his policies like nationalising the railways were pretty much straight down the line social democratic, far from extreme, and as we see now pretty much coming to pass under the Tories. Nowhere are railways profitable but the country needs a good system so people can commute to work. Simple. Ditto energy security, water, defence, roads, health.

          • NHS has 1M employees do the maths. ????? if you took a average salary. UK infrastructure paid for by investment and sold for profit. ypu sound about 18 and now have student debt you will avoid paying

          • Take your time and you might mange an intelligible comment. Try taking a little water with it 🙂

        • funny how all the Unions on strike. only one has a real case the rest is about bring down the govt. because you all think Diane Abbott could do a better job. just makes you think. Russian google is utter shite

    • You’ve a short memory if Labour 97 to 2010 is anything to go by.
      Let’s see what the current Labour will do.

      • Daniele, you dissemble once more.

        Peace dividend.
        International financial crisis.

        To achieve common ground, we need to recognise facts, please.

        • David, and you’re twisting it again. Dissemble means to hide ones true feelings and beliefs.

          Recognise facts…ok, I will, I’m out at the mo but when I’m home shall I AGAIN list the cuts Labour made 97 to 2010, many if them YEARS before the financial crisis?

          They are a matter of public record, and as bad as the Tory ones 2010 on in ALL areas save one, army manpower.

          Because the selective amnesia hear is ludicrous.

          Which is WHY I said above “if Labour 97 to 2010 is anything to go by”
          As it’s fact!!! Why you Labour lot cannot get it into your skulls is beyond me.

          I even held out some hope ” let’s see what the current Labour will do” and I’m still criticised.

          Your fellow Labour man Mr Owen was foaming at the mouth at the top if the thread….that was factual too was it?

          Hillarious as the subject in hand in his rant, Nimrod and P8 numbers, is glaringly innacurate.the program for Nimrod MRA4 had already reduced from 21, to 17, to 16, to 12, then nine, BEFORE THE BLOODY TORIES EVEN CAME TO POWER AND SCRAPPED THE 9 THAT REMAINED!!!!

          You want facts, I’ll bloody give them.

          • Daniele, hugs, please breathe.

            1996 was a world away from the mess we are in now.

            Financial crisis came End 2007? Lost my job at DHL. IIRC!?!

          • To be fair mate Daniele is correct in his timeframe and numbers, so why not give him that? Politics can lead to emotional responses with people who pretty much have the same opinion about just about everything else! Cheers!

          • No point arguing with daniele. He knows his stuff and is happy to admit when he’s wrong or has learned something. All round good poster.
            I don’t know if either party will be better on defence.
            The problem I see is there’s no spare money.
            I we take Poland for example they were able to surge there defence spending as the finances allowed it.
            The tories are already overspending. Labour haven’t said they will cut other budgets to pay for defence.
            Tax rises? I don’t know.

          • Buy some cheaper stuff to try and get some mass in certain key areas and improve procurement. That old caper.
            I see no other ways apart removing nukes capital costs back to the treasury.
            The budget is huge, but it’s committed.

          • Hi Daniele,

            I fear that removing the nukes cost from the Defence budget will not help much. I recently read somewhere (sorry can’t remember where) that during the 1980’s / 90’s the Treasury insisted that defence take the pain for Trident. The Treasury doesn’t see the various departmental budgets as seperate cakes rather it sees them as slices of the one cake called Tax Receipts.

            So, sadly, I don’t think defence will benefit from merely moving budgets around. If only it was that simple.

            Cheers CR

          • That’s interesting CR, I’ve accepted the oft repeated accusation that the funding was changed with Osborne in 2010, not earlier.

          • Don’t let the trolls bite mate, I know it’s hard sometimes not to bite back!

            Totally agree re off the shelf mass in some areas, but with the tail of political and industrial interests wagging the defence dog, it will never happen…

          • Hi MS. I’m of the view that higher corporate tax is the way forward. I’d suggest back to the 33% levels of the early 90’s. Time for Google,Meta,et al to start paying their fair share too.

          • I don’t know enough about tax and where income comes from to say what’s needed.
            Sensible taxes are essential. Like the first 1 million of a business is low tax and gets progressively higher. Deductions are given for investing, recruitment, training etc.

          • You don’t need to raise tax rates, that only clobber good honest business that pays its taxes. Plug the loopholes that let multi nationals pay next to no tax. For example, multi nationals tell investors their UK operations are very profitable, yet tell HMRC, they only just break even, or make a small loss. They do this by charging the UK subsidiary huge brand/logo fee. That removes the profit to a tax haven & the HMRC gets no Corporation Tax. The other trick is to overpay for an item from a subsidiary in a tax haven. Again it takes the profit away, without having to pay UK tax.

          • Thanks John, I certainly agree with you views on closing the tax loopholes. I should have clarified my point on reduced tax liability was aimed squarely at corporates.

            Its’ a philosophic view, but I would like to see privately owned small and medium enterprises pay a lower tax rate than corporates.

          • I would also bring in a lower tax rate for firms that manufacture real products in the UK. Not financial products.

          • LIKE all small uk self employed who only earnt 50p last year, live in a council house and have a Range Rover on the drive, paying a pittance in rent

          • No chance of that happening.

            They would move the profits elsewhere.

            The weakness is that Ireland Lishghnstein etc are allowed to have crazy low tax rates and so profits are extracted in those domains.

            The Irish thing really does need to get sorted as it is inflating their GDP to a ridiculous extent.

            As a business owner: if you tax profits too much investment suffers as cash from UK banks is far too expensive.

          • Spot on re your observations SB. I should have clarified my thinking was geared to publicly listed entities (corporates) as opposed to privately owned business .

            Personally, I believe privately owned business (SMEs) should pay a lesser tax rate than corporates, perhaps determined by annual turnover.

          • Turnover taxes kill businesses.

            When you grow a business you incur one-off costs and generally that depresses profit, which, if your business plan works then profit recovers.

            What is actually needed is

            – a generous investment allowance for premises, plant and machinery to encourage SME’s to build and own premises

            – cheap loans to businesses. Unfortunately the profitability of the banking sector has historically been more important than getting cash to businesses who need it.

            So ATM in a lot of sectors 15-20% interest rates are the norm for *secured* lending. Fortunately, a lot of plant and machinery manufacturers offer very low rates. But that does not finance the whole package such as building alterations. That can lead to the dangerous situation where a business has to dip into working capital to finance growth which, itself, can strangle the business.

          • Thanks SB – a really informative read. Totally support your thoughts on investment allowance/rebates.. My view on corporate taxation is largely formed from the profitability of the banking sector here in AUS/NZ( and tech giants). I’m reluctant to comment on UK taxation legislation, having no experience in that arena.

            Again, I am of the opinion that SMEs should have lower tax thresholds(less% paid of turnover) then publicly listed international corporates.

          • Yes Daniel and didn’t labour reduce the order for the 12 T45s to just 6 in order to help pay for that war, you know the Blair and Bush war for non existent WoMD, the war where they sent our troops in with no armour via snatch land rovers. Both Parties have been bad for defence.

          • The navy were given the budget for 12 destroyers that was asked for I think £6B. When it went over budget no more money was provided so numbers had to be cut.
            That’s what I think happened anyway

          • Hi MS
            The original plan was actually for fourteen (one-for-one replacement of the Type 42s)- it was salami-sliced over time, initially to twelve.
            Then, the first six were ordered, with a second batch of six to follow.
            Then, we were tied up in Iraq with lots of Urgent Operational Requirements, and the Navy was losing frigates to free up funds; so, the second batch of T45 was getting bought in pairs, but we were definitely getting hulls 7 & 8.
            Then, by 2007 or so… we were told we wouldn’t get the second batch of T45, but the existing six would get the Combined Engagement Capabiltity.
            RN CEC was deferred, delayed and then cancelled, because we were not only embroiled in Iraq but had decided to try to fight an insurgency in Afghanistan as well and more contingency funding was needed to cover all the UORs for that.
            14 to 6, pointless war got us there by Labour, although Conservatives would have probably done the same.

          • Pretty much – 7&8 could have been had for about £1.2Bn. There was about £550m left in the kitty the conversation was: do we pull money from the Frigate program line to build 7&8 or accelerate Frigates with the cash to hand?

            G Brown actually wanted the frigates accelerated so there wasn’t a gap after QEC.

            If QEC hadn’t been ordered then there was a choice of:-

            No UK warship building; or
            Keep building T45 as nothing else was ready to build.

            QEC build was, expensively, strung out by the coalition. And foot shuffling over frigates caused the gap that lead to River B2’s.

            Whichever way you look at it G Brown @ No 10 actually came good in the end. Inspite of causing the issue in the first place, when at Treasury, by failing to invest in the fleet steadily so we are in this cliff edge situation now with frigates falling apart.

          • Good commentary DM. People tend to have short memories. It’s sadly evident that both Tory and Labour have done poorly.

            I’d be pleasantly surprised (and happy) if another 3 P8 s and 2 more Wedgetails follow.

          • Morning mate. Yes, small steps. Every little helps. I’d bite the hand off for even those modest increases.

          • 2 Wedgetails is such a no brainer if the radars are already bought. I bet the RAF are very happy that the contract was written in such a way. Of all the defence contracts, 2 conversions of a civilian airliner for the capability it brings is a really good deal.

        • By the end of the Cold War the military had been consistently cut so all that was useful that remained, was in defence of the Soviets. Who reduced the military to this you may ask?
          I don’t think you’ll like the answer.
          The Labour cuts in the 60s were far more damaging than Tory cuts.
          The Tories have had one set of infamous cuts, which were in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
          Since 2010 the Tories have had to deal with the aftermath of the financial crisis, Brexit, Covid, and the war in Ukraine.
          Even just taking Brexit as an example, the effects on the economy short term were well known, there was always going to be an in between phase, but just as we emerge from that, Labour are going to swoop in and take the credit.

          • One set of infamous cuts? One? Oh you must mean Sir J Nott and Thatcher.

            Carrington took his honour with him, Thatcher wrapped herself up in the flag of the Union after Sheffield, Coventry, Ardent, Antelope and Atlantic Conveyor had been sent to the bottom and before anyone else patronised me, Barrow went from circa 30,000 Shipyard supported employees to a nadir of 2,500 – under that B!t<t.

            Our economy was wrecked by her and her ilk – high house prices? What were the names of her Chancellors who took controls off the banks.

            Buy a house Gov. 15% interest rates – do you remember that Louis? Do you remember putting up tents in drill halls in the late 80s because we had no fuel?

            Oh the poor Tory darlings, poor Boris.

            Retards caused part of the economic crisis by voting for Brexit. "Ho ho ho, fasting growing economy after COVID – Only because we flatlined

            Bollocks, on 16th Jan I used an Economist article with a Latvian Govt agency, that bluffing tw@t couldn't even attend Cobra meetings and claimed in Feb he had no knowledge of COVID and left the country wide open to inward flights and then discharged the elderly into care homes. Latvia was on shut down – and they weren't an island… go figure their death rates.

            As to Ukraine, the Cons cut defence in 2010 did little other than mouth weakly words, take Rusdian money and party with the Russian rich in Italy.

            So, let's agree to disagree and next time visit specsavers.

          • 1981 paper was not nearly as damaging as earlier Labour cuts.
            Pulling out of East of Suez, cancellation of CVA-01, cancellation of T82, cancellation of TSR-2, cancellation of F-111k order, cancellation of AFVG, cancellation of P.1154.
            Labour concentrated the military on Home defence, BAOR, ASW, and nuclear deterrent. Obviously at the end of the Cold War that stuff is easy to cut.

            Labour, wrecked the economy before Thatcher did, not defending her.
            Growth rate of the economy was lower between 64 and 70 than the previous 6 years under the Tories.
            I never said poor Boris.

            What have Labour actually ever achieved in defence? This century alone Blair dragged us into an unnecessary war (2 if you count Afghanistan).

            Nationalising of industry in 77, reduced aircraft manufacturers to 1, and caused at least a few shipbuilders to close when privatised again.

          • Go on to 97 to 2010, Louis, save me the trouble! The debacles today in procurement, from Ajax, to T23 falling apart, stem from the inaction throughout that entire period.

          • Just to summarise that period.
            SSN cut from 12 to 8
            T45 cut from 12 to 6
            Selling off the Batch 2 T22 and 3 T23 despite those ships only being 10-15 years old. Sonar 2087 also wasn’t fitted to 5 T23, starting off the GP/ASW split in the fleet.
            Withdrawal of Boxer programme to focus on FRES. Awkward considering Boxer has once again been selected for that role, and it could’ve entered service a decade ago.
            Ajax contract was awarded when Labour was in power.
            Army Rapier units cut in half, RAF reg gave up their rapiers. Reduction in MLRS batteries.
            Jaguar retire early.
            Cutting off MRA4 from 21 to 9, fatally wounding the project.

            There is most likely countless more that I can’t remember.

          • Louis, the cuts you mentioned have similarities to the defence cuts which started in 1919. The government of the day took a razer blade to the armed forces. That really hurt us leading up and into WW2. Arguably, we are now facing a similar situation with Russia and China. We don’t worry them. And that’s a worry.

          • RAF Sqns down to 12, from well over 20 when Labour came in.

            Escorts which were 35 down to 23.

            Armoured Bde reformed as a Mech Bde.
            19 Mech Bde reformed to Light, then disbanded.

            Programs cut left right and centre.

            Harriers cut, Sea Harriers deleted. That’s usually blamed on the 2010 rabble.

            Chinooks never ordered, QEC delayed adding 1 billion to the costs.

            DERA privatised.

            It goes on, and on, and on.

            Many came before the financial crisis, in the 97 and 2004 reviews.

            And still posters keep thinking this is a defence of the Tories. It’s NOT!

            It’s just simple facts posters will not accept, and even fewer acknowledge.

          • Oh, you mean kowtowing to the Americans who wanted us out of Africa etc al, who undermined Suez but overlooked Budapest. Who wanted our defence projects to fail.

            It’s my objection with Daniele, Labour cut this, cut that, yada, yada, yada, but, no context as to what was happening at the time.

            Osborne and Cameron took a kukri to Defence and that Bluffing tosser further screwed it up ably supported by a chuffing tic toc who broke all manifesto promises with a straight face – because Labour was so shoite, they didn’t know to call him out. Then Truss crashed the economy and Sunonak is just adding to the car crash, once more ably assisted by the same short service tictoc.

            The state of UK defence is firmly at the doors of the Cons – in 13 years, how has Poland turned her Defence around? The Baltic States?

            Context please.

            Finally, T26 could have achieved substantial orders with the USN… but wasn’t in the water because…?

          • Not really. Cutting long range bombers and CVA-01 meant we later had to Kowtow the Americans. If there was TSR-2 or F-111k plus multiple CVA-01 carriers, we could’ve been a lot more independent. If America wanted our defence projects to fail, then what would cancelling them achieve?
            Who brought back the UK Indo-Pacific tilt?
            Who got 2 carriers into commission?
            Who is planning on increasing escort numbers?
            Who is planning on increasing SSN numbers?

            If Labour come in, they army will be please but nobody else will. Tempest will suffer, SSNr will suffer, the carriers will suffer etc.

            Poland hasn’t turned her defence around. Their army is still around the same size as the British army. It will be a long time before those 1,000+ K2 tanks and 500+ HIMARS and all the other equipment that they ordered is fully in service.
            Poland doesn’t have SSN’s, or 30 F35’s, or T45 destroyers.

            The Navy is in a bit of a rough patch now but that is in part due to Labour. Faulty T45 engines was Labour, cuts to SSN was labour, withdrawing some T23s was Labour.

            2 Carriers, 5 OPV’s, 8 T26, 5 T31, 3 FSSS, 4 Tides have all been ordered under the Tories. Both Cammell Laird and Harland & Wolff have been given work. They have shown commitment to T32 and increased numbers of SSNr.

            In 2009, there were 2 very small carriers, now there are 2 giant carriers.
            In 2009 there was one Company that could build naval ships larger than OPV, and wouldn’t have been able to get export orders if their life depended on it.
            Now there are 4 companies that can build ships, with modern facilities and already export orders (not built in UK but still export orders).

            I’m not saying that the Tories are blameless. RAF fast jet numbers dramatically shrunk since 2010.

            Ben Wallace is a pretty good Defence Secretary and certainly much better than whichever Labour minister will replace him.

          • oh Tory ruined the economy? I think most economists would disagree and say it was Thatcher trying to rebalance and change the country to a modern economy and what about Labours damage before Thatcher? Huge debts and damage. Your comments are more than a little lopsided to the left

          • I agree, David. Thatcher was was in the process of ripping the RN to shreds. It was only the Falklands that saved the carriers.

          • That’s not true. Only one carrier was to be decommissioned. The amphibs were saved before the Falklands started. SSN numbers were to be increased.

          • Labour in the 60s shut more coal mines than the Tories did in the 80s.

            Also, the Tories had to bite the bullet that is the state pension age, but any of the govts in the last 40 years should have dealt with that.

          • All governments have problems to deal with and to expect nothing will go wrong is just silly.

          • Don’t forget Amery’s defence white paper in 57 that effectively ended any number of fighter aircraft projects, and Notts disastrous defence cuts which were taken by Argentina as carte blanched for a spot of empire building. Neither party has a good record on defence!

          • Of course, I was more making the point that the Tories have a bed rep from the 2010 cuts, when Labour has been no better.
            The cancelling of CVA-01 and the loss of our long range strike capability was probably the worst though.

            1981 wasn’t so bad, the amphibs had been saved right before the Falklands and only one carrier would be sold off.
            Of course it was poor timing given the Junta needed something to bring the nation together.
            If you talk about real capability lost (or what would’ve been lost) it’s probably one of the better Defence reviews.

            1957 was disastrous on the aircraft industry, although it was inevitable that the aircraft industry would have to be rationalised.

      • The world in the day was very different, things have deteriorated significantly since then. Context is everything.

      • No im not ,ex royal navy, a disillusioned veteran who like others has the total hollowed out of our forces from long ago

        • David, I completely agree on most of your comments regarding the Tories, but if you want less hostility you need to stop defending Labour as a saving grace to defense. No political party since WW2 can hold any of their heads above the parapet when it comes to defense spending. They are both equally useless. One may have cut a little bit more than the other etc but if Corbyn had of been in in 2010 I genuinely believe we would be just about decommissioning our nuclear deterrent right about now and our armed forces would represent the Japanese JMSDF. I’m not a tory, in fact there is no political party that represents me, but anyone who voted for or supported Corbyn is either mentally ill, deranged or has been washed so hard with the woke soap that they can’t see the forest for the trees.

    • Here here. The Tories are an incompetent bunch of back handing, corrupt bafoons. COVID 19 inquiry should prove their undoing, as long as the truth is allowed to come out. What chance Hunt, Cummings, BoJo, Sunak were all guilty of bad decision making, awarding huge costly government contracts to their chums and generally contributing to poor disease controls and proportionally some of the worst mortality figures for cv19 in the world.
      Eat out to help out is statistically proven by multiple sources to have contributed to at least 20,000 additional deaths and a larger 2nd wave then we would have suffered if the government had kept reasonable precautions in place.

      • I wasn’t going to pitch in, but do you honestly think Labour would have done any better?

        I doubt it, with the ‘A’ team of Corbin and Abbott in charge, can you imagine levels of Laurel and Hardy f*ck ups!

        I think they are all terrible…

      • I agree with your sentiments, Mr Bell. But Labor would have been just as bad, if not worse; although that’s difficult to picture.

    • Shit the bed calm your pants and take a breath! The Tories, and Labour are both to blame for the dire straits we are in regard to defence! I suppose you think Labour are the way forward, as they are the bastions of honesty, strong defence and fairness!!!!! 😂😂😂😂😂

    • If you really think Starmer ‘nee Corbyn is going to increase defence spending my friend you are either in a strange place or have no knowledge of history. Every Labour government since the war has cut defence spending. If you think this government has cut back, and they have, it still doesn’t compare with the Blair/Brown cuts.

    • Absolutely agree. Whatever party gets power we cannot afford any more incompetants ruling us. A weak UK makes for a more dangerous world.

    • I just hope this all goes through. The RAF have been saying a lot that they need more E7, A400M, P8, boom on A330. That all won’t happen on the next IR, so the RAF will have to prioritise. The biggest priority of those four is P8 because it will end production soon. Protector should be ordered in larger numbers, but I suspect a future RN order would kill a future RAF order.

        • But it is if they are also expected to help out P8 as well. They are a really good asset and we should be ordering larger numbers. Reform 39 squadron at a minimum to keep operating Reaper, freeing up more Protectors.

          • Agree with Reaper suggestion. Keep them out in the ME with Protector being home based.

        • Not yet we’re not. Hasn’t been confirmed just discussed. Would love to see 7 more aircraft announced. Will lossiemouth be able to support another 7?…. or back to Kinloss or some such for a few of them. I worry about all our resources being positioned in just a handful of super bases, each with zero GBAD/ ABMD.

          • Are you talking Protector or P8 here?
            I was talking Protector, which will go to Waddington.

          • At the end of the Cold War there were 4 QRA bases, 3 maritime strike bases, 4 other fast jet bases and 1 RN fighter base.
            There is now just 3 in total. At a minimum Leuchars needs to be reopened and half the Lossiemouth squadrons should go there.

          • With you Mr Bell, yes, some massive common-sense needed here. Spread these assets across a few bases and add GBAD with shared missile inventories with Navy/Army. Is anyone in the MOD taking all our absolutely free given advice here on UKDJ? Iol😂

      • Why can’t UK tankers have dual booms or some adapter to take all planes? Seems like an absolutely stupid state of affairs. How do they fuel up F35Bs, Hercs, or E3s? Is it the same issue? Why aren’t fuel connectors standardised?
        Anyone know if fuelling civilian planes are standardised?

        • F35b/c have probes, so did the E3s and the hercs.
          Main reason for 2 types of aerial refuelling was flow rates etc.
          Not such an issue now but the USAirforce use booms so all there aircraft are fitted as such

        • European and USN projects will be probe and drogue, USAF projects will be boom, so most nations have tankers with both probe and boom (we are the only A330 MRTT user without boom).
          Boom is faster which is why larger aircraft usually have boom.
          Probe and drogue can just be added onto aircraft easily which is why the USN use it (buddy tanking). Boom also cannot refuel helicopters.
          The French had an adapter on their KC135 booms so that they could be changed to probe.

          The issue is we haven’t bought a USAF fighter aircraft in a very long time, so the majority of our fleet is probe. This means there is little appetite to upgrade the fleet.
          C17, E7, P8, RC135 are all boom, the latter three being the most important to refuel.

          • Thanks Louis. Fuel logistics interoperability in peace and war is seriously important. Hope someone in charge comes to their senses with this. Air tankering could be one major capacity that the Wests excels at more than our Russian and Chinese foes. Do the later even have any air refuelling capacity and to the same level as the west? I’ve never seen anything on this.

    • Back again. Aren’t there still 5 remaining production slot/option numbers allocated for potential P-8 and E5s for the UK? Not sure if this is just from the UK side or with Boeing. Can’t be that difficult a decision for a few more? At least have a buffer quantity.
      Someone else mentioned the P8 production closing down? Not sure if that’s true, as I read somewhere that Canada is potentially up for 16 MPAs which is pretty healthy plus an increased sub fleet too.

        • Hi Daniele

          Do you have info on how many serial numbers are allocated? It would be a remarkable achievement if the RAF received 16 P8s, but I’d be comfortable with about 12 airframes.

          • Morning mate.

            ZP801 to ZP809 are the existing.

            Then “Reservation for RAF”

            ZP810 to ZP815, so another 6.

            BTW I don’t know any of this off pat, I’m no anorak spotter, and not interested in serial numbers!
            But a friend is, and just rung him for the info!

  3. It was blindly obvious from day one that 9 airframes was a laughably small number in relation to potential requirements, and that the Voyagers needed a refuelling boom if the P8s potential in British use were to be fully realized.

      • Luckily the Japanese do take it seriously and are building up a good sized fleet of highly capable P7’s.

    • 9 was the envisioned number for two reasons.

      1, previously they had 9 ‘production’ standard MR4A’s on order with the three trials machines to either be converted to Nimrod R1 replacements, or withdrawn.

      2, 9 happens to be the number needed to ensure 6 are operational 24/7 to de-lauce our SSBN operations and provide minimum maritime emergency response.

      That’s it, obviously post Ukraine things have changed, but the Government doesn’t give a toss unfortunately, neither does Labour, who fully intend to put the borrow and tax throttle to the floor, so don’t expect any changes.

  5. I think I speak for everyone here when I say:
    “We need more of everything ”
    when it comes to the military.

      • Buy the probes ourselves & put them instorage so when the SHTF we can do so quickly without Boeing charging us the Earth. That or get a US style boom conversion kit.

        • Sadly even if we bought the probes. Boeing would have to model and test the probe’s integration. As the MoD no longer have the authority to sign off a design (Due to Haddon-Cave). Therefore it would still cost a shed loads to do.

          The quicker and cheaper option is to retrofit the refueling boom to our A330s. As this is used by other countries on their A330s, getting Airbus to sign of the installation is a lot easier as there is already precedence of use. Plus Australia uses both the A330 and P8 along with the Wedgetail. So UK trials will also be a lot quicker.

  7. I should imagine there are many more Russian submarines out in the vast expanse of the Atlantic Ocean than there are in the Icelandic Gap. Any guess how many more sub hunting aircraft, frigates etc would be required to find them before they might set off their fireworks – conventional or nuclear???

    That will set the cat amongst the pigeons!

    • I don’t think there’s many Russian subs at sea. The U.K./USA know when one leaves port etc.
      It has about 5-7 SSN that can go to sea another 2-4 Oscar ssgn, 1 yasen, 6 Borei SSBN, 2-3 delta 4 and 1-2 delta 3. Oh and belgarod.
      How many of them could be at sea at one time is anyone’s guess.
      It also has the kilos

    • Loads. You’re looking at dozens of frigates, at least 12 astute subs, 3-4 ASW helicopter UAV carriers, 36+ P8s with refuelling probes that work with a revised Voyager tanker. in essence a very focussed ASW navy/ RAF.

      • Even then they would be looking for needles in a haystack. With their stand-off weapons frigates and aircraft wouldn’t have a chance to get anywhere near them. My comment was rhetorical.

    • If you look at the last table in the article you will see the impact of range of operations (left hand column) on numbers of aircraft needed for a sustained patrol. Andy Robinson had it right and he is former martime man. There is a similar arguement for E7s which could be easily be made.

  8. I agree that 9 P-8’s are not enough. We have Russia in Europe and China in the Far East, if both areas go hot at the same time Britain will be in deep trouble.

    • So will everybody else. We have not got the resources or bases to get involved in the Far East. Let the Americans look after it with their huge Navy and airforce. We should concentrate on the NATO arena.

      • Regards P8 and generally I agree. Though I would not withdraw what minimal assets exist in the east and the Middle East currently.

      • If China kicks off it will be all hands to the pumps. We can’t just settle back and say we’ll watch Russia while you guys get stuck into the shooting match. Chinese expansion is a threat to our way of life, and we’ll use the military to combat it if we have to.

        • Indeed. Their reach is global in one form or the other. Recently got right on board backing Argentines claims to the Falklands. The more influence the CCP has over the world, the more dangerous it becomes for everyone.

      • I’m inclined to agree. Europe should be more than capable of containing Russia in a non nuclear scenario without a single US asset or boot on the ground being needed. The fact it can’t is indefensible and just demonstrates how everyone wants a free ride off their bigger friend. Some would call that taking advantage of…

        The wealth and power of Europe demolishes what Russia can offer.

        Free the US to contain China, the Pacific is far more accessible from the US west coast than to Europe.

    • There won’t be anything left of the Russian Armed Force’s in 6 months time the way they are getting thumped in Ukraine.

      • It’s mostly Russia’s army and to a lesser extent their air force that are suffering in Ukraine. Their navy has gone quite principle because the black sea fleet has been pounded and suffered significant losses.

      • Hi Robert, if Russia gets whalloped in Ukraine and pushed back over the fence I can’t see them taking a defeat very well and there’s a strong possibility of them restocking again “with everything” with a bit of help from their friends in Iran, China and Korea. Then it’ll be round 2 against the West.

        • There isn’t anything the West can do to stop that, apart from help Ukraine push them out, then arm them properly. Perhaps even admit them to NATO. I’m not too keen on that mind.

        • With the loses they have taken in both equipment and manpower the idea that Russia is going to be able to quickly or even slowly restock is questionable. They are going to have huge issues with the survivors of this war, the braindrain they have already taken and the impact of reduced investment into Russia.

    • I would like to see a few more P-8, but still fear we cannot afford enough. Perhaps a few cheap Beech KingAirs, with radar & EO, for low end tasks, such as fisheries, people/drug/weapon smuggling, searching for missing boats & general ocean watch?

  10. Seems like the MPA fleet does need more aircraft doesn’t it. Also stop the air tanker nonsense and bring held to random by a private company and fit Voyager with the require Air to air refuelling kit for the P8 and by default I’d guess Wedgetail as well. Put the Wedgetail order back upto 5.
    These are key strategic assets. We can’t be begging allies during a conflict for their air assets because we’ve deliberately and willfully chosen to have inadequate resources.

  11. Just confirms what has been said on here and elsewhere for years. 9 aircraft gets you a capability to sustain operations in support of CASD and monitoring the GIUK gap but that’s about it.

    If we truly have global ambitions and want the option to deploy an MPA capability within them then more P-8’s will be needed.

    And personally I think whilst we definitely should have ambitions to be involved globally it’s about time we at least tried to cut our cloth accordingly by having a coherent defence strategy, structuring the services to this and accepting that we can’t do everything and be everywhere but better to focus on bringing specific offerings to the table. All of which should be done within a determined effort to get a lot more bang for our buck and cut the prodigious amount of waste in the MoD.

    But then again coherent strategies and efficient spending are in short supply across the entire government right now!

  12. It was always blindly obvious 9 airframes were never going to be enough given the extent of the oceans around the UK, overseas patrol bases/areas, crew training and maintenance down time.
    Its begs the questions who/why the RAF heads who were brow beaten into accepting only 9 aircraft. Guess they were sitting on big pension expectations.

    • I totally agree, senior officers have sat on their hands for years and watched their respective services get salami sliced, year in year out and have said nothing!

      Apart that is, from “thanks for the massive pention old chap and I look forward to the non executive seat on BAE Systems / Leonardo etc board after I leave… Did someone mention lucrative share options, lovely, open the caviar and champagne dear, while I lobby hard for expensive helicopters”….

      Nothing changes, self serving, egotistical yes men….

        • I would absolutely love the chance to knock heads together and put my boot firmly up people’s arses in Whitehall, relish it in fact….

          • There are a lot of armchair generals/admirals/air marshalls on this forum with all the arrogance of thinking they could do a better job. Obviously you are one of them.

          • There are a lot of trolls on here these days. Obviously you re one of that apparently growing number puffed up Billy…

          • So you’re not a troll. Us trolls should obviously leave these important issues to experts such as yourself. Go bake yourself a cake.

          • Hell yes, we all reckon we can do a better job!! Healthy banter, enthusiasm and even an old word “patriotism”. Just trying to make sense from some of the nonsense. Wanting to keep the 🇬🇧 strong. Your right, running the military, juggling all the demands, must be bloody difficult. We all here do have great respect for the armed forces, past and present and the DS, Mr BW.

      • They have been too busy focusing on being social justice and diversity warriors. They’ve been oblivious to the destruction of the RAF as a credible fighting force and not raised so much as a whimper as its been eroded to nothing more than a local defence force.

  15. It’s good that these capabilities are looked at, but don’t hold your breath! Possibly another 3 may be procured, if we are lucky but any more than that, no way! Politicians don’t see, or understand the need, and P8s don’t buy votes, give money to benefit recipients or allow for a parent of a third child to soon get benefits (as Kier is planning), or a dole hanging full time scrounger to contribute, hence no interest in more P8s! Simple facts, not liked by some but a reality!

    • How true, unfortunately Labour is preparing to borrow and spend biblical amounts of money.

      It’s planning to spend a ‘fortune’ on its green agenda and the NHS alone, while not carrying out any reform to that that already vast bureaucratic black hole.

      Labours economic ‘teenager with a credit card’ policy….

      Borrow, spend, borrow some more, spend some more, then increase taxes all round when it all starts to go south.

      The current government are bloody clueless in the interest of fairness, but Labour will be a horror show.

      • The UK credit card is pretty much maxed out. Liz Truss showed that. Labour will not get very far on its spending, before the international money men say no. An old fashioned run on the Pound. Then the UK has to go begging to the IMF, who will demand savage spending cuts. A 1970 style “Back to the future”.

        • Here is a selection of Kier Starmer’s views on defence, which may surprise you

          “Sir Keir Starmer has criticised the prime minister for “breaking a promise” not to cut British Army troops.

          During Prime Minister’s Questions, the Labour leader quoted Boris Johnson from the 2019 election campaign, where he pledged to maintain the Army’s size.

          But Sir Keir said this week’s defence review would now see numbers fall by 10,000 as part of government plans.” BBC 23 March 2021

          “Labour’s support for nuclear deterrence is non-negotiable”

          “Ukraine-Russia: Sir Keir Starmer calls for Parliament to ‘look again’ at defence spending and defence strategy” 21 May 2022 Guardian

          “Labour leader urges the UK Government to reconsider its approach amid planned cuts, and claimed his view was shared by many Tory MPs.” 23 May 2022 Scotsman

          One more

          Asked if he supports increasing defence spending, Sir Keir said: “Yeah, I do think the Government’s going to have to come back to Parliament and look again at defence spending, and I know many Conservative MPs think that as well” The Telegraph Feb 2023

          • Look, I played a very tiny part in SDR98, under New Labour. I still think that was a good template for how to have full spectrum, global deployable forces, worthy of UN P5 membership, but at the lowest cost. Sadly, Gordon Brown would not fund it. From then on, it has been “death by a thousand cuts”, first by Labour, then the coalition & now the tories. “Conservatives, Labour, LibDem, “a plague on all their houses” as far as I am concerned. Starmer flip-flops on so many issues, he has no credibility with me. Britain faces a “frying pan or fire” choice at the next election.

          • I do not think many of us would argue with you re. SDR98, it is the way things fell apart during Labour’s 2nd and 3rd terms that angered me. Yes, the Iraq/Afghanistan situation was unprecedented but the savage cuts of 2003/4 on following the White Paper basically sacrificed the RN long term to keep the ‘war on terror’ stumbling on. The decision to cut the SSNs from the promised 10 to 7 (and it would have been 6 had Labour been re-elected in 2010) remains one of the destructive acts ever.

            Defence was passed around like a hot potato for years with no SoS in post anywhere near long enough to get a grip on the situation. Also Brown was clearly antagonistic towards the MoD which I have never forgiven him for and never will. So yes, Labour started out well in 1997 but we are judged by how we finish a race rather than how we start it. I have little confidence in Starmer, Reeves or Healey to deliver anything positive for defence so the future looks little better than in 2010 when the ConDems arrived.

          • Sums it up completely John, Labours proposed spending on its public services and green agendas alone is vast, there is going to be zero money for a defence increase.

            I await their policy on defence with interest, I suspect it will be full of vague ‘ intent’ to do this and that, that will actually equate to nothing.

            I would agree that Labours first SDSR in 1998 was a well balanced effort, but the never ending war on terror consumed that balanced force structure and effectively destroyed our ability to unilaterally act as a nation…

            Both parties are absolutely guilty, for me Cameron’s 2010 cuts though we’re wildly reckless and delivered a mortal blow to the UK armed forces.

          • Come on David! You shared that with me ages ago and I demolished plenty of it then.

            Headline army numbers again, easy sound byte, no word on equipment, logistics, organisation, or deployable brigades.

            Nukes, yes fine, so much of the budget is lost by being hamstrung by that commitment as it is.

            The Tories pre 2010 said all the same stuff as Labour dismantled the military and promptly carried on the work.

            I remain unconvinced.

          • One thing that I learned ages ago was that you can never trust a politician. But how about we give Labour a chance? Starmer is aking the right noises.

            With a national debt of £2.5 TRILLION costing us £80Billion a year to service whoever wins the elction is going to have to be very carefull with money. The Tories have been borrowing, taxing and spending for 13 years, I doubt Labour will be able to do the same.

          • The ukraine invasion came as a slap in the face wake up call, calls to review defence spending and priorities were pretty much shared across all parties, save the thieving low life in power at the moment.

      • In 13 years of Tory government the national debt has more than doubled from £1.2 trillion to £2.5 TRILLION. With interest rates at 4.5% this is costing us about £80 billion a year to service. We spend about £50 billion on defence.

        The 2010 SDSR (Cameron, Osborne and Fox) absolutely eviscerated the Army in particular, scrapping the Harriers and an entire armoured regiment – and sending redundancy notices to enlisted men engaged with the enemy in Afghan as they sacked thousands of soldiers.

        When he was Chancellor, Sunak printed more money than any Chancelor in history, this year his administration with be borrowing billions to pay the interest on our debts.

        Roughly 22% of the working population works for the government in one way or another. At the turn of the century it was about 14%. Alll these civil servants, quangocrats etc will be expecting index-linked non-contributory final salary pensions paid for by the long suffering taxpayer. 1.3 million people work for the NHS, they want pensions too

        If Labour do win the next election, they could not possibly be worse than the Tories’ appalling 13 year record of waste, incompetence and sleaze. They even managed to kill about 185,000 citizens by their unbelievable mismanagement and incompetence during the pandemic

        Time for a change maybe?

        • Afternoon David,

          We go round in circles unfortunately, I am no fan of the current government, but Labours previous tenure was equally a disaster!

          Blair turned the party into a Blair cult, he was reasonable for the credit card approach the current mob use, generated huge debt (from a position of virtually balanced books), gambling that there wouldn’t be a worldwide recession, de-regulated banking contributing to the economic chaos, got us signed up to every war going while at the same time cutting the armed forces….

          All in all piss poor, he even fled his post leaving his sidekick to face the music in 2010 when he knew very well the writing was on the wall….

          So both appalling, but I still trust Sunak over Starmer (I know, not much of a choice), Starmer has proven to be easily led by his Woke advisors, his green polices are already causing economic issues as investors pause….

          Certainly not PM material.

          At least under Sunak, the ship has settled on its course and economic stability is slowly returning and will (much to Labours consternation) continue to settle as inflation drops, taking food and energy inflation down with it..

          Labours lead is narrowing, not good with more than a year to go.

          Labour announced polices so far = economic chaos in my humble opinion..

          All in all a poor choice all round!!!

        • The days of civil service non-contibutary final salary pensions are long gone. Civil servants in MOD are paid far less than their military counterparts doing the same level job. Most expensive is pushing the tasking out to big consultancies and industry primes, especially if there isn’t even enough civil service expertise to be a smart customer If you cut back on the civil service numbers/experience, they won’t even understand how to deliver requirements at the right level much less work hand in glove with the provider while keeping oversight.

          James Heapy was absolutely right when he said the processes have become too governance-heavy and risk-averse over the last 30 years. Even smart civil servants are too hamstrung to do their jobs effectively. It isn’t saving us money. Exactly the opposite.

    • True enough. Isn’t it also true that they look at our budget and wonder where it all goes? We seem to get very little “bang for our buck”. The MOD needs to manage its budget far better than it does.

      I’d argue for increases over a 3 to 5 year period in order to solve current issues. Then back to current levels. Mind you if NATO end up with a 2.5% of GDP target then we may be all quite happy!

  16. It’s just pathetic isn’t it really. I want a full break down of each defense department, what their budgets are and where every penny goes. The US does this but trying to find out how much is spent on the Royal navy as a budget is like trying to find a needle in a haystack

  17. I wonder what the cost would be in sorting the air to air refueling issue. I would guess not significant and would be a force multiplier in the most traditional sense of the word.

  19. Off topic but has anyone else read rumours that the US is talking to Australia about donating their F-18s to Ukraine? I don’t have a 4G connection at the moment so I can’t retrieve where I read it

  20. Awful lot of disagreement on this subject guys,I will say 16 aircraft would be good but who knows .To be honest what was said in one of the posts about needed more of everything very true .The government must up defence spending to 3% at lest if not 4% really although the old argument of the Economy will come up.And yes we’re not in a good way .For me our Armed forces need to be back at 1980s levels .The PM I don’t think has any ambition to grow our forces or put more money in.Well now I guess I going to take my turn and Get shouted at or bit by some of you guy’s 😡 🐕 🇬🇧

  21. Lets be honest, the military needs more of almost everything. But I have little hope. The Tories lack long term thinking and Labour will probably think it’s racist.

  22. Golly who’d have thunk it?

    That said there are a number of competent European allies who have P8 so to deal with the Russians it isn’t that bad.

    For dealing with China that is a different story.

  23. Well no shit sherlock, how long did it take to work that out? The same applies to every other over stretched aircraft the RAF operates too! Not to mention the non existing stuff they no longer have.

  24. If Labour win the next election it will be the most far left, socialist government Britain has ever had and defence will rank somewhere below collecting dog poo in their list of priorities. Before I’m accused of defending the Tories I’m not. I am not a dyed in the wool Tory voter but there is no way I will vote Labour. Just read about some of the things they are proposing to do.

    • Spot on Geoff, the current mob have pretty much exhausted their remit after 13 years and Labour are an absolute potential horror show……

      O

    • I must agree with you Geoff. Little point having armed forces to defend our way of life, if we vote for the marxist pigs in westminster. It would be good enough reason for another civil war.

      • Frightening George. If Labour do get in the Marxists and the woke brigade will dump Starmer in a matter of months and I don’t trust him. What a prospect.🙃

        • Starmer is a useful idiot appointed to make it look like the Trots Corbyn marxists have been evicted. When in actual fact they still control labour from the TUC. You are correct not to trust him. Socialism is nothing more than an intermediatory stage between free democracy and totalitarian communism.

  26. The problem is pretty common in UK Government. Ministers pat themselves on the back for trimming budgets and being ‘efficient’ but always define efficiency as having just enough resource to cope with Business As Usual’ and no more.

    As soon as the unexpected surge turns up, the system can’t cope. It’s true of ships, planes, ammunition stocks, PPE equipment, ventilators, natural gas reserves…anything. Resourcing for the unexpected is hideously expensive in all those years when the unexpected doesn’t happen.

  30. There’s no ‘may’ or ‘might’ about it. We need more P-8s and at least two more E-7s. We are dangerously under-resourced.

    Add to that that Airtanker was a catastrophe, and us being hose-and-drogue only is nonsense. Look at the number of types on fleet that need a boom: P-8, E-7 (soon), C-17, Air Seeker…

    • How was and is Airtanker a catastrophe?? Somebody has already pointed on this forum it would be much cheaper and quicker to convert the aircraft you mention to probe and drogue. I believe for the Falklands war Vulcans were very quickly fitted for such equipment in a matter of hours in readiness for the Black Buck operation.

      • We paid top dollar for only half equipped aircraft, & if we want to add capability, we will have to pay an arm & a leg for it. We should have bought A330 MRTT outright.

          • The boom, the UARSSI, the armour. Frankly Brown looked at air refueling tankers & just saw an airliner. So he had a “cunning plan” to rent out spare aircraft to charter airlines. I knew it would not work, as decades ago, I used to get a cheap off peak week in the Canaries, flying there on a Monarch A300, a travel agent friend told me, that the package holiday firm only pay the cost of flying me. To make a profit, the charter airline needs me to buy something (wine with the meal, duty free, scratchcards, gifts). With margins that tight, how can a charter airline carry the extra weight of refueling gear, armour, satcomms & other military kit? They can’t, so we ended up with a halfway house that pleases no one. Even then, we paid a fortune to turn an airliner into a tanker, paid another fortune to take that kit off so we could rent it out to a charter airline. Should the RAF need it again, we will pay another fortune to put that kit back on again.

          • Let’s not forget that the surplus A330’s leased out are now reaching the end of their airline viability as they age…

            Then what, sat about at Brize, dissapear to Arizona in ” nothing to see here, move along please” while the UK tax payer pays to give rattle snakes somewhere to shade under….

            A WI type slow clap for Blair and Brown please gents…..

          • Yes, airlines need A330 NEO 800-900 models to make money now. If we had an industrial policy, we would be funding an Airbus A330-800 MRTT prototype.

        • Another of Blair’s PPFI footballs kicked down the road for the next government to sort out….

          Remember Labours “look at all the Hospitals we are building” rubbish…

          All built with private money and leased back, a ticking time bomb of debt…

          Ever the used car salesman, fixed smile on his face while he funnels sawdust into the gearbox…..

    • Interesting, would you be the plastic bag or the squirrels in this scenario said the psychiatrist sitting back in his leather armchair, what do you see in these ink blots?

      Mr Puffed up Billy nervously fiddled with his tin foil hat…..

      • I would be the biggest squirrel in the bag – bam wham – get out of my way – my opinion is worth 100 of yours. If you could squeeze out all the comments in this forum it is that we need more of everything. Pooh Bear can see the bottom of both his honey and cookie jars.

        A very amusing reply – many thanks!

  32. We have not enough of most things across the forces. That’s one reason Russia & the CCP feel so confident & dangerous today. Every arm of the forces is too small & poorly equipped, with capability gaps.

  33. Some of findings of the report are in reality not able to happen with out a massive increase in defence spending. Moding the voyager in it slef would end costing 100s if a billion pounds it would take years and years and having a massive impact on the training.

    More P8s not going to happen I think more wedge tails is more likely as that’s a bigger gap to fill.

    We the public and defence need to get over the fact that we are no long a teir one force and stop demanding the MoD police the world with a shoe string budget.

    That all beening said with a few choice air frames and the removal of ajax for a proven platform defence could be in a very good place to protect force for a long time.

  34. Wow, thought this was about p8 but it’s about shitty politics! Let’s face it guys there is no good party for defence and never will be again, we are to civilised now to be building anything to do with defence.

  35. We’re wasting our breath as no one cares. This could be the opening sentence to any article, on this website I have enjoyed and followed for many years. The great British public doesn’t care( well probably 95% doesn’t) and hasn’t probably cared since the end of WW2. Politicians of all parties don’t care ( The PM is almost certainly more ignorant regarding the defence of the country than the average reader of this website) I thought Ben Wallace did but recent comments prove he is just a yes man with an eye on the big job at NATO. The forces chiefs appear more concerned with gaining a peerage than showing the B**ls to stand up and tell the Truth, which is the only force that is fit for fulfilling the primary of purpose of defending the UK is the ……….Army!!!!! , yet the Army is f**ked!!!! it just has the smallest role in defending our island nation from an external aggressor. So despite all its deficiencies and c**k ups all those infantry brigades that can’t be deployed etc etc mean we have sufficient trained troops to act a ‘key point’ guards. But for a country of 70 million people we have an air force that hasn’t learned from any war it’s fought in concentrating all its fast jets at three airfields, all transport and tankers at one airfield, all the istar aircraft at one airfield ( I know the P8s aren’t at that airfield, instead being based at 1 of the 3 fast jet airfields ) So the oldest air force in the world has all its fixed wing aircraft concentrated at 5 airfields which have no missile defences . Added to this it takes the longest time of any air force, to train a fast jet pilot (7 plus years as opposed to 3 years without all the holding delays) and that’s without the delays in even recruiting due to woke quotas. Then there’s the Royal Navy, which even when the other two forces were at their previous lowest ( early 1930’s) was strong and respected. Now they are reduced to two aircraft carriers, 6 AAW destroyers and I think they are down to 11 ASW frigates and 5 to 6 SSNs. So at best we have one carrier group that is able to defend itself but not the UK. Out of all the nuclear powers we are alone in phasing out all tactical weapons, which are arguably more of a deterrent in that they more likely to used . A nuclear force based solely on SLBMs is more a national status symbol than an effective deterrent . We have sleepwalked, lulled by surviving decades of continuous capability gaps and telling ourselves that any increase in the effectiveness in individual weapons systems can be paid for reducing the size of our forces to a point where we lost the critical mass to recover.
    But never mind no one cares.

      • All three services are long past the point, where avoiding disaster is within their ability. So as every passes we are a day nearer disaster, ironically the one thing that the three services have in common is that the number of senior officers hasn’t shrunk at the same rate as junior ranks so they won’t be able to feign surprise when the s**t hits the fan.

  36. From an outsider’s perspective, don’t believe there is any deficiency w/in UK military that could not be resolved over time, given the requisite funding. Somewhat difficult to comprehend that the largest conflict on the European landmass since WW II would not motivate the political class as a whole (Labor, Liberal Democrats and Tories), to provide the funding necessary dor expedited rearmament. Simply restoring the percentage of GDP expended on defence during the late Cold War era would probably be immensely beneficial. Could prove to be a tad late to address the issue if/when aircraft and missiles are inbound. 🤔😳😱

  38. Could have used redundent Hercules for basic recce and rescue duties over North Atlantic. Upgrade radar. Refuelling probe. What more do we need ? To late of course

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here