In its latest report entitled ‘Defence in Scotland: The North Atlantic and the High North’, the Scottish Affairs Committee has voiced concerns about whether the Royal Air Force (RAF) has enough assets to maintain necessary defence and surveillance activities in the North Atlantic and High North regions.
The RAF’s Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) jets, based at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland, form a vital component of the UK’s defence infrastructure, performing key roles in surveillance, anti-submarine warfare, and threat response.
Several witnesses during the inquiry expressed doubts about the sufficiency of the RAF’s aircraft numbers, specifically the P-8A Poseidon, E7 Wedgetail and Typhoon aircraft, to meet the increasing security demands of these crucial regions.
The concerns raised point to a potential shortage of resources if the UK is required to increase its defence activities in the North Atlantic and High North, which may necessitate diverting resources from elsewhere.
“In its response to this report, the UK Government should address the concerns raised in evidence both to this inquiry and to the Defence Committee over whether the number of P-8A, E7 and Typhoon aircraft is sufficient to provide the coverage required in the North Atlantic and the High North, and whether any increase in activity required in the region will require resources to be diverted from objectives elsewhere. The MOD must review whether the complement of aircraft it has available is sufficient to meet the increasing security demands in the North Atlantic and the High North.“
The committee has called on the UK Government and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to directly address these issues.
The MOD has been urged to conduct a comprehensive review of its available aircraft to ensure their adequacy in light of the potential for escalating security challenges in the North Atlantic and High North.
Commenting on the report, Pete Wishart MP, Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, said:
“The North Atlantic and the High North are becoming increasingly important to the defence interests of both the UK and NATO, and Scotland’s role in the defence arrangements is considered to be fundamental. During our inquiry we heard widespread agreement that the Arctic is of growing strategic importance and maintaining a well maintained and resourced military capability is essential to meet The UK’s defence interests.
Because of its geography Scotland is home to a number of the UK’s strategic military assets and in our report we call on the UK Government to look at how the defence presence in Scotland could be scaled up if required to meet future threats if required. We are also calling for a review of the UK’s cold weather capabilities.
We also looked at the opportunities and threats that may emerge because of climate change in the Arctic and the High North. Emerging trade routes and the responsibility of protecting offshore and subsea infrastructure are likely to become emerging priorities in a fast changing environment. As a Committee, we’ve conducted a series of work on Defence in Scotland, and it’s clear to all the considerable contribution Scotland makes to the UK and NATO’s defence and security. This is a topic we will be keeping a close eye on. We wish to extend our gratitude to all those who work to defend us and keep us safe.”
Been out of the Business’ a long time but effectively with Norways 5 P8s’ you havea joint fleet of 14. Joint/Multi tasking was and probably still is the SOP’.
I suppose that’s the way to view it, forget unilateral action, we just need to concentrate on being a cog in the NATO machine these days….
The Tories have slashed capability across the board, as noted by The Pentagon.
You have a point but do you think our capability is going to increase if that other lot get in though?
I would hope so, but much depends on the mess the Tories have made. I do know that if a Labour government had done this to the services the right wing press would be shouting very loudly – and rightly. They are strangely silent.
Oh God. Another ” Labour isn’t responsible ” for anything post. If you don’t think the press would comment where do you think a lot of these stories come from? 🤔
It certainly isn’t responsible for the appalling cuts since 2010. The stories will come from either the forces themselves, or defence analysts. The point is that it might be reported in the right wing press but other than that they make no fuss at all, like many other issues they choose to downplay.
I’m not saying there haven’t been cuts but you have to wake up to the fact that cuts under Labour were far worse, otherwise my friend, you’re just peddling propaganda to no purpose.
That’s not really true, is it?
There was a great article published 3 weeks ago on here that was far more nuanced about funding and cuts.
Who is peddling the propaganda now?
If I can make a suggestion David. Don’t believe me. Check for yourself. Cuts under Blair/Brown VS cuts under Cameron and co.
Labour cuts amounted to 28% of personnel. Tory cuts post 2010 to aimed numbers that haven’t been reached yet (army still at 76k) are 22.5%.
In 1997 there were 38 escorts.
6 T22 batch 2s were decommissioned pretty fast even though their average age was less than 14 which is less than half their life.
3 T23s were then sold off with an average age of less than 13 with one being a very young 8 years old.
6 T42 were also decommissioned and their replacement T45s cancelled.
The Tories on the other hand decommissioned 4 T22s with an average age of 22 which is not their whole life but not far off, reducing the fleet to 19 escorts but are still planning to increase the escort fleet to 24 with T32.
Labour decommissioned the Swiftsures and cancelled their replacements leaving the SSN fleet at 7. The Tories are planning to increase that again.
Labour failed to do anything with the Army.
CH2 upgrade to smoothbore was passed over.
AS90 upgrade to 52 calibre was passed over.
Pulled out of Boxer programme.
Tracer cancelled
LIMAWS R and G cancelled
WFM introduced and reservists now unable to deploy as whole units (both being reversed since 2010)
Nimrod cut from 22 to 9 dooming the MRA4 project even more.
Wanted only 22 Pumas to be upgraded (increased by Tories to 24 and to 44 with NMH although also replacing 14 other helicopters but still an increase of 6).
Jaguar cut
Sea Harrier cut
HMS Invincible decommissioned.
That’s not even mentioning the huge reduction in the industry supporting the military under Labour or the GWOT.
You’re like a broken record quoting numbers without context; however, you know that, don’t you?
Cuts under Blair/Brown are the main long lead time items that we are struggling with now Type 23 replacement, Type 45 failure, QE class order stripped away money. MRA4 failure that under Cameron couldn’t get its FAT ARSE off the runway. sending troops into war in lightweight Landrovers. anbd there replacements that were no better. all as bad only the desperate clutch at straws as proven by the SNP.
Please remind us of the words BW used in his penultimate address to the House, would you?
Erm, labour crashed the economy and doubled the size of the state, except for the armed forced which they provided no additional funds to despite committing us to two wars….
So labour is the reason SDR 2010 happened, and labour is the reason a lot of our kit is worn out or not fit for the future because it was brought under UORs for the specific wars they committed us too.
Yes the last 3 years of tory rule have been heinous with regards to waste and supercharged levels of tax, but let’s be clear who started the ball rolling. Both parties are awful.
The global economic crash was the reason the Tories brought in austerity including the cuts imposed in SDSR2010.
Yet you fail to mention the cuts that currently are causing shortages on ships, pointless arguing as you are not interested in the fact, they are as bad as each other.
Well, obviously Geoff the Daily Mail is all over these front page worthy stories,isn’t it?
Don’t read the rag myself. Does it report well?
I served in the Army during a Labour Govt in the 70s and I can assure you it wasn’t pretty! BAOR couldn’t get any spares,Chieftain engine upgrades put off we could go on. BCWYWF.
Maybe you should read the Daily Telegraph then, isn’t that the so called Torygraph?
The Labour Party in Government would be good at handling our finances? Because if not more UK assets will go. Under labour we would be going green and that would cost, the Tory’s are backing aways some on Net Zero.
They are both equally responsible HF
Exactly, These one sided posts, ignoring that the rot set in well, well before 2010, need to stop.
Cuts are cuts, no matter the geostrategic climate.
Example, Nimrod MRA4 went from 22, to 18, to 16, to 12, to 9 ( or something along those lines ) BEFORE Cameron came to power in 2010.
Then was scrapped by the Tories with two in service because of their need to promote the ‘Britain is bankrupt’ and austerity line.
Oh come along HF, let’s not get into an MR4A discussion, that was an absolute living nightmare and made the TSR2 programme look well run….
( I went and did it, I mentioned both)!!!
Cuts kicked in proper in 1990 and slash and burn Defence slashing has gone on ever since, both equally bloody useless parties are fully responsible…
I would say Cameron does deserve a special mention in dispatches for his absolutely bloody insane cuts however….
The cuts in 1990/91 in Options for Change were justified because the Cold War ended. Every cut since since has been unjustified.
Yes. Whether the MRA4 was good to go, or not, is beyond my level. I’ve read so many posts here over the years saying it was ready, or no, it was never going to work.
On the numbers point, and the point of this article, we were to have 9 then, we have 9 now.
I’d prefer if they were Nimrod due to their low level capability with the4 engines, but that’s history now.
We have MPA, clearly not enough.
Totally agree about the numbers. I’ve posted the evidence about Nimrod a number of times, so I won’t do it again.
Type 45 design labour = tory fixing now
POWs design labour= tory fixing now.
type 23s Replacement= tory fixing now.
MRA4 Design labour=tory cancelled.
for every plus, there is a swing regardless
Personally would have much preferred it if we had gone and purchased the Japanese P1 when the original decision was made. Its vastly more capable at low level with its 4 engines, much like the old Nimrods were.
One day we might just unhitch ourselves from all that the US produces and go our own way – which wont be a bad thing in lots of cases.
Hmmmm I cannot see it happening myself. What were the costs of P1 vs P8 do you know?
Appreciate the 4 engine low level point, much as my comment on beloved Nimrod.
No idea what the costs actually were, but the Japanese bought two aircraft over in 2015 to Farnborough I think, when we were actively looking at a Nimrod replacement. Obviously we went with Boeing and we are here today with 9 cabs. Japan on the other hand currently has some 30 aircraft in its inventory, an island nation much like us! Appreciate the fact that they dont do the nuclear thing, but still….
Hindsight and all that, it does make you wonder sometimes, if we made the right choices? As we all know, we are too light on P8 numbers which unfortunately isnt going to change anytime soon – all though it really should be a top priority, more so than the numbers of tanks we might end up with.
Exactly. The moans are underway re tanks on the other article.
We need them, yes, but we need sea, air, and intelligence power more.
At least, that is my view.
there was a nasty rumour of the nine airframes, there are not enough aircrews for the airframes we have,
Afternoon Jon,
Somehow, that wouldn’t surprise me if the rumour is true. We seem to be in a downward spiral with defence at the moment, with no real sign that we can reverse the situation anytime soon!
Daniele, I had to extend your Nimrod plug to include that other brilliant piece of British flight engineering, the Avro Shackleton. As a nipper, on occasion one would come thundering over over the house.
Those four Rolls Royce Griffons and contra rotating prop were pure magic. Sure played a part inspiring me to join the Air Force.
Daniele, I also thought the P1 a better fit and better for Anglo-Japanese relations.
Costs wise, there was nothing in it iirc and we could have integrated UK weaponry rather than relying on less effective US systems.
Cheers David . Though I don’t think it was ever in any doubt that we’d by American.
You’re welcome Mandelli 😉 😉
I would have preferred to see the RAF have the P1 for ASW and possibly the C1 and C3 on the transport side.
I think that the C2 is a good aircraft too, unfortunately it’s development was several years behind the Atlas A400. Would have given us a viable alternative to the A400 if it was in development a few years sooner, as imo it’s the better plane.
MRA4 airframe was ready to go, yes BUT load it with its sensor kit and fully loaded it couldn’t get its fat arse off the runway. was underpowered due to the engines selected to fit in the wing boxes. fact the kit went on to the P8.
There’s a teeny weeny more technical stuff in regard to the MR4 debacle! But never let technical “stuff” get in the way of a political agenda mate 🤪
The problem is when you back one side red or blue you tend to not see the real picture. I don’t hold either of the parties in high regard, Labour is currently being measure against a very low bar set by the Tories which is a very bad situation for the UK public. Last election was least worst option for voters next election is heading the same way imo.
MRA4 couldn’t get its overweight arse off the runway and needed more development, fault lay in the design and airframe. With BAEs wanting more £Ms to put there design right. the resulting pissing contest took out the Harrier fleet/Gearboxes for Invincible class and got BAEs removed from prime bidder on any MOD work. why BAEs had to buy out firms with contracts.
ah DM, the old chestnut. People have short memories or indeed none at all. Nimrod is a good example to highlight.
Never during a Labour government has The Pentagon made the comment that the UK no longer has a full spectrum capability.
Only because they were on the front end not the tail end of the cutting.
Not very convincing.
Oh dear. How sad. I don’t really care what you find convincing or not.
what the fact we now question there actions, because they think they are above the UK, kick its biggest Allies, because some old fart who only got voted in because he wasnt Trump, bit like Starmer, simple vote for him as he was not Tory.
Has the Penatgon made such a comment now? I must have missed it. Thought they just complained about our numbers not any inability to engage in operations across the spectrum.
Senior US Generals earlier in the year. I posted a link on another thread.
Thanks David. I am sure that we still manage to maintain an ability to conduct operations across the spectrum, even if in certain areas it is less than ‘full bore’. Indeed it has sometimes been a criticism that we are averse to role specialisation.
Maybe because we backed them in 2 wars whilst Labour were in power, they’re unlikely to have the knives out. We should also consider what the pentagon would have been saying if Labour had won in 2019. Don’t say it not relevant because they didn’t win, its relevant because it was a choice the British people had to make and reason we have the Tories is because the opposition were not good enough, in particular on defence they we not convincing, and that’s being polite.
From a Country that’s biggest invention was Winnie the Pooh, and designed in the UK. That’s because USA is currently run by the IRA, whose own son is a crook.
….but some more than others! 😂 Sorry John, I couldn’t resist. Yes, all enough to make you weep.
35 escorts in 97, 23 by the time Tories arrived.
23 fast jet sqns, 12 by 2010.
SSN down to 7.
Army I won’t list, lots of armour lost before 2010.
They’re all guilty.
I remember in 2010 being utterly depressed and despairing, after all the Labour years of cuts, and Cameron goes and does what he did to top it all off.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler
We appear to be in the final stages of that cycle 🙁
And let not forget our voting options at the last election. Labours 2018 RUSI speech which set out there policies would have hollowed out capabilities, that’s the choice we had a the last election.
No need to remind me! That lot are still in the wings, no matter what the Labour crowd here claim.
Terrifying.
great summary DM. I think also the RN escort went to 24 (or25) under the Blair cut in 2004? The other overlooked cuts were the “stealth” reduction in RAF fast jets before the 2010 Tory comeback general election win
25 sqn F3 Tornado- April 2008
43 sqn F3 Tornado- July 2009
56(R) sqn F3 Tornado- July 2009
It’s odd how folk squabble over Labour vs Tories. Both have appalling records on matters defence.
Exactly.
Yes. The RN escort reductions need careful monitoring.
35 in 97, went to 32. Then an additional T22, so 31.
2004 cuts, the 3 T23s – down to 28.
The 12 planned T45 become 8 planned, so down to 25 as the older T42s are decommissioned.
Then the 8 T45 become 6, so with the last T42s going, the fleet is 23. 6 T45. 13 T23. 4 T22 B3. 23 Escorts.
The Tories since have not eaten away at the escort fleet in the same manner, as the cuts to T22B3 reduced 23 to 19.
It is their politics and inability to get on with T26 that now bites us as the 13 new Frigates on order or being built are coming too late for the struggling T23s, which are paying off before their replacements arrive.
All parties have been hopeless at Defence and I will call out anyone who sprouts bollocks that it is all the Tories doing that we have the numbers we have now.
Cheers DM. I cant see a labour government going ahed with the Type 32 frigates. The RAN will be lucky to maintain 19 surface assets. Naturally, I would be happy to be to proved wrong and see a return to the pre 2010 levels of 24.
Me neither.
I don’t think they’ll cut numbers to any degree.
I DO think they’ll cut programs, and make us a EU partner. They’ve said as much already.
Hope we’re wrong my friend.
cheers Mate – enjoy your Sunday.
And just what did BW say in his penultimate address to the House, pray dear, remind us.
You’ll never get any sense out of a labour voter.. they’re a bit like the snp in Scotland.. all they do is shout loader and close their ears to any civilised debate. But I agree both Tories and labour have been absolutely shocking to defence
It all started going to pot under Macmillan. Eden had screwed our sense of national pride by running away at Suez, then after Macmillan, Douglas-Home tried to push spending back up, but he wasn’t in for long and Wilson just kept the cuts coming in his first two governments. Anyone else want to go further back to the post-Korea peace divided perhaps?
We are where we are. I don’t know how we get where we want to be, but blaming your favourite hate-figure politician isn’t going to do it.
Defence is one of these things where it’s never enough. I always find it funny when looking at American forums and they say the same things said here: cuts, wasted money, not enough of everything etc.
Now I’m not saying the U.K. is in a great position but just that it’s not the only one.
Hi Jon. I think the reality is that Defence was going to get cut after WW2 in any event for obvious reasons but more importantly, Empire started to wind down after 1947 at which time the UK had significant defence assets worldwide so it was inevitable that as this process continued the size of our Armed Forces followed suit. The other reality from around the time of Harold “Bloody” Wilson 😉 was that the British economy was rapidly deteriorating so money was in short supply
Eden was forced by the Americans to curtail the operation in Suez. The Americans threatened to destroy our economy if we persisted.
Oh god how boring! Party political sheep bleating the required chuff! All parties have been wank on defence, all!
and therein lies the truth of the thing
Noted too by Russia & China, which made them so confident flexing their muscles to our harm.
In my view we are stretched across the board, this sounds like the Scottish government trying to get a bigger slice of the pie. Not that I blame them, more assests raises their importance and is more mony for the loacal economy
It’s not the Scottish government. The Scottish affairs committee is part of Westminster.
OK MS thats a fair one, But I’m not fully sure what they are on about. Isn’t the entire fleet of P8As and E7s due to be based North of the Border anyway? If they are screaming for more I think most of us would agree with them, but I dont think thats going to happen any time soon.
They seems to be screaming for more. It’s a constant noise from the committee.
Lossiemouth is the the new favourite base for everything.
I hope they have plans to spread out quickly. All the eggs in one basket.
I doubt it’s the favourite posting there’s not much around there.
Inverness down the road a bit.
Years of fence cuts, getting rid of assets by prematurely scrapping Harrier GR5 and Tornado then buying F35B’ instead of A’s so we have carriers without enough planes etc ( they should have the original catapults) … disaster.
Did you really mean to “post” about “fence” cuts? 🙂
Not only fence cuts but 7 of my bloody fence panels blew down the other week! And carriers without planes, which planes? They don’t have many carpenters on deck I agree, plenty of F35s on deck however and didn’t they get rid of the GR9s? As for catapults, probably a bit short range and underpowered, could be incorrect use of rubber band but………give it a break please with the oft repeated but incorrect rhetoric about the carriers! Just gets boring, many thanks and have a great evening 👍
Don’t get me started on fence posts. Last bit of wind it wasn’t the fence panels but the actual metal spike that broke. Strong fence, weak spikes. I’ve still got to dig out a post mix lump with a spike in it and get a new one in.
In relation to the original “post” GR5 and tornados won’t be great on the deck.
Bloody fence posts! Had that a few times, great big concrete lump to dig out 2 feet down!!!😂
😂
labour design for the QE class, Tonka was expired and typhoon could cover the slack,
GR 5S were long gone, GR9s grounded by BAEs in a pissing contest GOVs dont ground airframes,
Guys I have a solution, hear me out:
https://www.scramble.nl/military-news/return-of-the-catalina
I read that, fantastic idea…..👍
My grandad used to look after them in india 1939-45😱
Russia has a nuclear bomber fleet, across 3 platforms, namely Bear, Blackjack and Backfire. Could saturate UK air defence maybe?
Are you auditioning here as a stand-up comedian … 😂 …
Made me laugh!
He is more of a bent over!
I’ll bite, I reckon Norway,Finland,Denmark and Sweden would have a lot to say how many off those you mentioned got through and then the RAF would have its turn🙄
The big strategic issue for Russia is that the majority of their maritime patrol aircraft and bombers are around the White Sea. Which in places is less than 200 miles from Finland. Plus the port city of Murmansk is close to the border of both Norway and Finland. It would be very easy to cut off the city and the whole Kola Peninsula. Which could then nullify Russia’s Northern Fleet. Which is probably why there has been a lot of military infrastructure and building work going up around the Gulf of Ob further east.
So its very easy to cut off the whole Kola Penisula…..interesting take.
They would probably just defect given half the chance, or perhaps drop one on the Kremlin….
I doubt they could even find the UK with their general levels of incompetence to be honest…..
What amazes me on this site, is everybody says the UK needs more spending on defence. Defence against what?
Well the RN is to keep the sea lanes open and promote open trade, ensure uk economic territory is safe from anyone in the world.
As part of nato the U.K. has to have
Forces to back up any nation in nato. This will involve deploying troops and everything required to keep them safe.
That could be a Russian incursion, turkey being invaded among a few things.
The U.K. has a lot of friends around the world and forces deploying can help cool things down.
U know all this already though.
Is the U.K. going to be invaded? Not likely. Will the U.K. ever have to deploy to protect its territories around the world or help friendly countries, probably.
In 2000 who would of thought we would be in Afghanistan from 2001? No one.
Same with falklands.
Little green men appearing in crimea. Not much notice.
Things happen quickly.
Exactly.
Get rid of capabilities at you’re peril.
Defence is an insurance policy I for one would happily pay more tax for.
The Russians, we’ve volunteered for troll sifting service…
Now that is the top troll post of the day!
Russia, China, Iran, Islamic terrorism. Especially ABM.
If Trump continues to stride the US political scene, then the potential for civil war in America could give Putin & Xi the distraction to move on many fronts across the world. What if the Saudi royals were deposed & a militant regime took over? All that western supplied hardware coming back to bite us!
The only things the Russians could saturate at this time would be their mattress.
I heard they shared the mattress…
They steal all the butt pillows from the army stores, stitch them together and mattress is sorted. They do smell of Soviet butt holes but hey it reminds them of better times.
Thankfully, I don’t need eye bleach for that post but do we have nasal bleach?
Well the donkeys of Westminster finally managed to get it into their thick useless skulls about the dangers that useless fxxxxxg politicians both tory and Labour failed to address, let’s see what happens about their sticking plaster solutions, one to watch ?
The simple answer is No, we do not have enough assets for the North Atlantic and other areas of world wide operations that or where we have an interest. Yes we could possibly vount the Norwegian P8 fleet. However, in a NATO-Russia conflict the Norwegians would be operating much further North whilst the UK would be looking after the GIUK Gap and the area of NW Scotland defending the sub route in and out of Scotland.
Possibly it is time that we buy 12-18 Sea Guardians or better yet 18-24 with 8 -10 kits for carrier operations. This would give the carriers 4-6 units for ASW/Maritime Surveilance and a further 6-8 GA Mojave for overwatch armed recon. Combine these UAVs with 2 sqns of F35Bs, 4 CrowsNest, 2 Merlins in the transport role, 4 Merlins in the close ASW role, 4 Wildcats and 4 Apaches. The carrier group has a cost effective but powerful airgroup.
The same with the P8, with 2 Sea Guardians operating with a P8 at the same time you have a powerfull long range Maritime Surveilance and ASW group.
This would give the RAF and RN a good cost effective Area Maritime Surveillance capability either as a extension to the T26 ASW capability or as an extension of the P8 capability.
I am not sure of the cost but I would think it would be somewhere in the £15 million range per unit. So the total cost of 18-24 would be somewhere about what we paid for for one E7.
We share the North Atlantic task with all other NATO nations with a navy, including the USN. How many ships do we need to earmark and how many are we short?
A very useful addition to NATO.
“The mounted radar is capable of tracking ships, planes and missiles up to 300-400 km while at an altitude of 20,000 feet.”
SKY NEWS
Poland buys planes to ‘protect NATO’s eastern flank’
The war in Ukraine has forced many countries in Europe to take another look at their defences.
Germany is perhaps the best-known example. The country has vowed to spend much more on the military, after largely being reliant on the US and NATO since the Second World War.
But Poland is also taking steps to protect itself.
The country has signed a contract to buy two Swedish airborne early warning and control Saab 340 AEW-300 planes for approximately 600 million Swedish crowns ($57.81 million), the Polish defence minister said today.
“Thanks to this, NATO’s eastern flank will be strengthened and Polish airspace will become safer,” Mariusz Blaszczak said on Twitter.
Poland plans to spend around 4% of gross domestic product on defence this year to modernise its armed forces.
The early warning systems comprise the Saab 340 aircraft equipped with Saab’s advanced Erieye radar.
The contract also includes ground equipment and in-country logistics and support services, the company said in a statement.”
LINK
2 planes for $57.84 million😱
I’ve read it 4 times is this correct?
Is the radar made from tin foil and an old stereo?
Great deal if correct. Nato should get 20
I assume $57.84 million each.
I think I may have the answer on price. Perhaps Poland is buying the aircraft Sweden is replacing with its global eye aircraft.
That could very well be it!
I suspect everyone on this site wants more of just about everything and we will blame Labour or Conservatives from the past for our present woes.
Right despite the threat caused by Russia all we have are fancy new reports with nice terminology and no uplift in the Defense budget like in many other European Countries.
Well I suspect the real reason BH is going is because he has been told in real terms just how bad the U.K. finances are. We are broke plain and simple and the other European countries aren’t.
As of today our annual bill for the interest on our debts this year will be £110 billion or 10.4% of all Government revenue.
That is the highest figure of any Major country ever recorded.
The simple reason for this is because a large % of our recent debts are on Bonds that pay interest rates related to our rate of inflation.
Who would of the thought the tories would increase the debt so much even after austerity.
The government just keeps making it higher. Sometime someone is going to have to say to all benefits of U.K. government spending sorry it’s less this year. The debt can’t keep increasing.
We have had austerity, grow the economy through spending, it’s covids fault once in a hundred year event and so on.
If there’s any other way of fixing the situation without cutting spending please present them now.
The government is like ur mate that keeps taking credit, over spending, moving debt and we all know what happens eventually. They miss payments and the whole thing crashes around them.
Hi George
Shouldn’t this headline read: “Concern over RAF numbers above the Atlantic ocean – as opposed to in! 😁