The Ministry of Defence has confirmed a £1.3 billion allocation for the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) programme in the current financial year, answering a series of questions from Conservative MP James Cartlidge.
In response to a question about whether the £1.3 billion represents the full expected allocation for the FCAS and GCAP this financial year, Defence Minister Luke Pollard clarified that the £1.3 billion of government funding was planned in the previous financial year.
He added:
“The £1.3 billion figure provided on 19 September 2024 accounts for the Government funding for Future Combat Air System/Global Combat Air Programme in the current financial year.”
Cartlidge also asked how much of the £1.3 billion had been planned in previous financial years to be spent this year. Pollard responded that all the funding had been anticipated, stating:
“All of the £1.3 billion of spend this financial year was planned in the last financial year.”
Additionally, Pollard addressed whether the £1.3 billion is fully government-funded or if there was any private sector contribution. He confirmed that the figure represents government spending, with the majority focused on GCAP activity, explaining:
“At the start of this financial year, it was expected that the Ministry of Defence would spend up to ~£1.46 billion on FCAS/GCAP. The forecast was reduced to £1.3 billion due to revised estimates of programme activity from industry throughout the year.”
While the £1.3 billion is significant, it represents part of a larger effort to build a cutting-edge air combat system, with further investments likely in the coming years.
The funding is needed for training, recruitment and airframes now – not jam tomorrow. Our current 130 or so fast jets wouldn’t last long against a significant peer threat. The priority has to be the near future not 10 year horizon – by then we may well have lost.
Who is the peer threat through currently? Russia can’t go 100 miles from its borders, China is on the other side of the world and I don’t see what the U.K. could do anyway.
How the world will change in the next decade we will have to wait and see.
The threat comes from ballistic & cruise missiles plus suicide drones. The range of these Iranian missiles & drones, is getting longer & longer.
Iran is not considered a peer threat rather a A symmetric threat.
GBAD,GBAD, GBAD!!! Where is it?
There isn’t.
There is no significant peer threat that we would facing alone.
Against any major threat (China) in the next 10 years our contribution to any coalition will be next to minimal whilst the outcome of that will directly our allies and subsequently us. Fielding < 9 FJ Squadrons is not a recipe for military success against Russia, a victorious China or in a scenario where the US retrenches. Our challenge is now not just in next decade
China might attempt to annoy it’s neighbours but it would be stupid to risk all out war with the US anytime soon. It has 10-20 years work to do before it has half the amount of kit necessary to give it a 50% chance of success. The mere suggestion that China and Russia were going to combine forces would likely see NATO countries give Ukraine whatever it needed to crush Russian forces in western Russia and force a retreat. Russia would be the weakest point and it’s military would understand that. I would foresee a change in power in Russia… Read more »
Have you seen Russia’s performance in Ukraine? And you think they can suddenly shoot down Typhoons and F35s.
They don’t have to!! Our MOBs are so few and far between they’re now our own centres of gravity. 2 cruise missiles (1 each on Lossie and CONS Officers Mess) and it’s game over.
Why would we be fighting China in a scenario of US retreat? We are no where near China. There are 40 countries in NATO+, everyone’s contribution is minimal except the USA but it all adds up to the greatest military industrial power in human history.
You cant say that if multiple countries including allies are been attacked simultaneously. US would protect the US etc. Not the UK
If the US were attacked it would wake them up a little – like Pearl Harbour. It would show them they are just as vulnerable as the rest of us. United we stand – divided we fall. The US is part of NATO – it works both ways.
Seem to remember something happening one September about 25 years ago and Article 5 being invoked.
Yet still they forget.
Very true.
We a nuclear armed island in the safest spot on the planet thousands of miles away from any potential pier threats. Why would we nee the USA to protect us? Who would you think they would be protecting us from?
Not the point , yes doubtful we would face a peer on our own but we have to be able to Defend our selfs to some degree GBAD would be a start .
There is no point winning today if you are going to lose tommorow anyway. We cannot afford to not be at the cutting edge of fighter jet development.
We have fighter jet’s today (if not enough), if we don’t invest now we will still have those same jets in 20 years time as well.
There won’t be a tomorrow if we persist with talking big and carrying a <9 Squadron small stick. We’ve been lucky so far and very complacent as is evident in this thread. We didn’t have the same complacency in the 1930s.
👍
I agree except your final claim we didn’t have the same complacency in the thirties which until a few years prior to war we were. Very interesting book though can’t remember the name, detailing the process of rebuilding the airforce pre war I think from 1936 when those more enlightened were beginning to see the prospect t of war but most did not want to see it especially the general public. Fact is nearly all that rearmament was done in secret until 1938 and was pretty desperate, pilot training was a shambles until thankfully completely overhauled as war began but… Read more »
Yet times are different! It now takes years to train a pilot and nearly a decade to build a frigate. Back in the 30s we had an industrial night to galvanise. Today we don’t – very different
Russia can’t even achieve air superiority over Ukraine. It wouldn’t last 5mins against NATO.
So why so much pánic in Europe with “future russian invasion”, if Russia has no planes , ships or tanks for what to Worry about, it seems a joke, please decide , it,s Russia a very dangerous and powerful country or it,s a joke and an unarmed and poor power ?
NATO is a defensive alliance and conseqently we aim to deter aggression. In order to achieve that Russia must feel they have zero chance of winning. I suspect that some on this forum feel that Russia has no chance whilst others give them a slight chance and wish to increase our defences to eliminate that slight chance. Personally I look at the depth of the forces which Putin would need to face from the vast majority of the northern hemisphere and sense that Putin has no chance and knows it.
After taking out our Officers Mess and few airfields (we don’t practice dispersal) and at a time when Trump’s in power – I wouldn’t rule it out. With just 9 Squadrons and 3 FJ MOBs were easy meat! Any Russian J2 will already have worked out our weaknesses – they are glaring! How long does it take to build and train a new FGR4 Squadron? = years. We are wholely ill equipped to tackle Russia even in a weakened state we wouldn’t last 2 months.
When did we talk big? I must have missed that one.
Cameron, Bojo, Wallace – they all strutted around like hard men pontificating whilst forgetting they’d cut, cut and cut our defences. The problem is none of our political class have ever dealt with the consequences of a severe military defeat, ie: mass PoWs, reparations, mass death, national international humiliation.
Well clearly that is impossible. We move forward as rapidly as possible creating the kit we want for the UK and in quantity.
I’d you don’t start tempest soon then you can kiss our fighter industry goodbye. If you take out the wests second biggest fighter developer you significantly weaken the entire free world order. We currently face close to no threat but we might face a superior enemy in 20 years.