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.
That’s one important point I certainly mentioned on consultation to the SDSR 2025.
One point of many many many concerns with the UKs military preparedness
if there is no threat according to you? why sink tons of money on new planes if according to you Russia is a paper tiger. Rmj makes a valid point.
have you not been paying attention? the fact is Russia is spending huge amounts on building its forces. so both GCAP and rearming (manpower, equipment, munitions, etc…) today are a must.
It’s not an either/or proposition, it’s both.
my 2 cents
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 »
One respected U.S. analyst put it like this: ‘Two Arleigh Burke class destroyers in the Malacca Straits would do to cut China’s oil supplies’. Rather more to the point China is already on the slide economically, demographically and politically. It has ‘bought’ most of the United Nations with money it will never see again. A cultural change in the west and a return to a more dynamic formulation of western interets and influence would put China on the back foot. Ten years ago a prominent American politician averred that China was the U.S.’s bank manger; ‘How do you argue with… Read more »
History is littered with respected analysts.
China has grown on the cheap labour it can provide yet it sees a future where even that can be undercut by new tech. A contradictory perspective maybe as I am sure that the rest of the world would have been happy with China continuing it’s work ethic providing it was not threatening everyone. It seems likely that the US and China will come to blows of some kind at some point – probably just not yet.
The Straits of Malacca are a fact just like the Straits of Hormuz and the Suez Canal. These immutable features set conditions that the wise pay attention to, for they can shape world affairs. To what purpose would China go to war in the future but not today? China is as wedded to the western economies as any other non-aligned country. The concomitant of taking unwise action is known as ‘cutting your own nose off to spite your face’. China wishes to exert power – like the U.S.A. and the E.U. – and for nearly the same ends, all of… Read more »
The Suez canal is not the only route. You can go around the horn which many ships are currently doing. The Straits of Hormuz become less important if we have moved away from an economy based on fossil fuels. New shorter routes begin to open up as global warming increases. Much of China’s economy is built upon selling cheap labour to the West. However once the West manages to seriously get into the automation game Labour becomes almost free and China needs the income. China is buying assets and developing it’s influence abroad but it is a game everyone will… 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.
Except. War doesn’t work like that does it. You are massively over simplifying the subject. By your assessment, then one cruise missile on Kiev and it would be game over in Ukraine. Except its far from over. Because Russia is so incompetent it can’t invade is neighbour. Its lost more warships to a nation that doesn’t really have a Navy. And yet you think Russian subs can just rock up in the North Sea undetected and can start precision strikes on the UK? Really.
Complacency is a deadly trait. Centre of gravity analysis highlights inherent weaknesses for a game over outcome. Russia has many options to removing the Officers Mess at Lossie, Con and Brize. As a result of endless cuts the UK has many centres of gravity.
Clearly not from the UK are you. Russia has zero options other than a all out nuclear strike.
You’re saying RU has no capability to take out the Officers Mess at Lossie beyond a nuclear strike? I can think of many. Put yourself in the shoes of their J2.
I think you need to get over the officers mess. Russia can’t even hit a tower block with any accuracy. And you clearly don’t have any clue about UK/NATO capabilities. Or that any strike on the UK or our allies would trigger article 5 and you would have a Trident D5 heading your way.
Hi Robert -they would be far wiser targeting the officers pub as opposed to the mess. That is of course, my personal view of my air force years😚
It’s a CoA.
If rumours are to be believe, Ukraine may have shot down an SU-34 with an F-16 using an AIM-9X. That’s not a good look for Ivan.
No but we have to have those aircraft available in order to be able to employ them. All UK Fast jets are based in three airfields and all our transport aircraft located in one. The RAF doesn’t do ground-based air defence so all are acutely vulnerable. Even if Russia targeted just one of those airfields with submarine launched cruise or Kaliningrad based ballistic missiles which would you prefer to lose. All your F35’s? All your transport aircraft? Or half of your typhoon fleet? Trying to predict Russia is difficult. In Ukraine we failed to correctly predict events because we confused… Read more »
Has Russia managed to take out all of the F16’s donated to Ukraine? Should be an easy target to wipe out in one go.
Well I guess it would be if the Ukrainians lined all their aircraft up in nice neat rows and based them out of 3 airfields close to the coast and left them undefended by any GBAD.
But fortunately the Ukrainians aren’t that cheap or that stupid.
And the UK would be if we ended up in a conflict?
Agree
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.
In the event of a US vs China war, no doubt we would be involved as we always follow the US. Of them 40 other countries I would guess only a handful would also get involved. The world is too dependent on China economically, more so than the US in many cases.
However right now I am unclear what China would have to do trigger US involvement. They are also massively reliant in China and it would tank their economy to get involved, so would need to be something far more significant than taiwan
I agree, I’m not sweating it about the UK making a “marginal” contribution to a war in the pacific. That’s a long way from home. Any contribution we make in the pacific would be a follow up or a handful of SSN’s. I’m fine with that I see no need for more.
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?
We have bases a couple of hundred of miles away from Lebanon with zero ground based air defence and visiting friends. If Iran attacks Israel and kills some of the US personnel now stationed there and US retaliates against Iran then Iran retaliates against US…what do you think might happen? Cyprus is hugely punchable.
I’m at akrotiri right now.. staying with brother in law. And the amount of US little birds, Blackhawks and the daily noise of the U2 taking off and landing would make for a very nice target for someone wanting to hurt a few yanks
Any US naval assets floating around to protect any of that kit?
Went into Limassol over the weekend and it was rammed with yanks. 3 ships docked in the harbour. Plus had HMS Duncan in as well… Quite a busy time down here at the moment. Missed the firework display going off courtesy of the Iranians by a couple of days but brother in law said it visible from his yard
Pretty decent defensive capability then if needed, let alone air based assets on hand! Very little would get through that other than an all out attack by Turkey or Israel as the only potential threats.
No argument from me I’ll happily buy some GBAD and stick it in Cyprus.
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 .
We have 174 Fast Jets at my last count. 137 Typhoon, 37 F35’s (Dec ’24). That is sufficient to protect a small area like the UK mainland and the Falklands. Numbers count for more when you consider the tech and capability these have compared to a possible peer threat. So lets not put ourselves down too much. I absolutely agree the number is not enough but its also not terrible.
That number you mean is ‘barely’ sufficient when you reflect on maintenance, training, rotation and accidents. How many do you think that allows for operations – 4, 6 or 10? Not many is it. This is before you factor in operational tempo, casualties etc. the 72 hour planning cycle means you’re lucky to get 6! Our kit is fantastic but numbers matter
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.
As did the previous leaders before the names you mention and give or take 2 weeks probably the current leadership also, lets see soon.
Well clearly that is impossible. We move forward as rapidly as possible creating the kit we want for the UK and in quantity.
‘Rapidly creating the kit we want’ – with what industrial base? It’s taken us 5+years to build a frigate, it takes years to train a FJ pilot.
So what do want then? paper planes and knock out a Frigate in 2 weeks. Have a day off will ya.
You clearly view the depth of our capabilities with either rose tinted spectacles or with ignorance. You also seem to view potential foes with deep complacency. Both are dangerous perspectives that only serve to feed the distorted perspectives of our flawed political leaders. Even today we wouldnt last 6 months in a conflict with Russia without the US on our side.
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.
The most significant yet least often referenced change in Europe in the past thirty years has been Sweden and Finland abandoning neutrality. An attack on the U.K. alone would be a signal that others would be next – no, I agree with you Jim, it isn’t a realistic scenario. Terrorism is, but we have done remarkably well facing down modern terrorism compared with others. Our defences have been heedlessly neglected, particularly human resources and our former industrial base, though innovation has been and remains very good. The overall abandonment of a national (U.K.) industrial and manufacturing policy explains much..
In the next 5 years we face; a resurrgent battle hardened Russia that will have learned a lot of lessons and still possesses the ability to mass produce. We have China that is building capabilities exponentially and we have Trump coming into power. How long does it take to train a pilot, recruit and train a ships company, build a ship – the answer a long time. We’re in no fit state to face a significant military threat for at least 7 years
Yes we are in a state to face down a significant military threat as we are part of the largest and most capable military alliance in human history! This ‘battle hardened Russia” of which you speak cannot even subdue an immediate much smaller neighbour nor protect its own borders against actual invasion and occupation.
You’re very complacent. NATO is yet to be tested militarily so your statement is hollow. NATO is at risk from Trump and without the US were a collection of under armed and under funded states with long and strained logistics. As for Russia they’re learning and have the industrial base to regrow. We on the other hand don’t.
Resurgent battle hardened Russia, thats borderline comedy.
Russia has lost its entire trained fighting force (not that it had much training to start with) have no idea how you expect it to replace that in 5 years? Possibly with severe lack of training they can hire criminals and force foreigners to replace but they arent exactly battle hardened trained individuals.
Russia can throw as much crap at the wall and hope it sticks (not much is) but its also ran out of the numbers advantage. It only has 2 options left, press the red button or arrange peace.
France I judge to be an ally, therefore I cannot see where the ‘near peer’ threat comes from. Since 2022 Russian capability has been demonstrated in full. Not a pretty picture is it? That said, you are correct in believing we should be treating the present state of our armed forces more robustly. A particular concern must be recruitment. The public campaigns are woeful, painfully P.C.
“Clarifies”
Lets check Sir Humphrey thesaurus of what it means….
After reading the article and the posts I came to the result that the UK does need to think about its air defence now and in the future. Is 9 fast jet squadrons enough, no. Can we do something now that would be cost effective, yes. Yes we could order a few more squadrons of Typhoons and F35Bs, but they would take years to come on line. I would agree that the F35B numbers should be at as minimum of 72 with all being mainly for the FAA if both carriers are operational at the same time. However, more Typhoons,… Read more »
I agree you could even partly man UK based GBAD system with reservists to help reduce the manning requirement on regulars.
There’s also absolutely no point at all in buying expensive systems like F35 or building carriers if you have no capability of defending them and their required infrastructure.
This is all Well and good but what the hell is the government doing?
We have Russia killing citizens in the UK with chemical weapons, bombing a warehouse in the UK, not to mention invading it’s neighbours in wars of aggressive empire building and threatening nuclear holocaust.
Seriously… At what stage are we going to see the UK switching to a war preparation stage?
We’ve got to sort the mess out now.
More F35Bs, another batch of typhoons all necessary whilst the MOD pushes tempest into production.
Not criticism of the new government, the rot set in years ago but 14+ years of Tory disaster isn’t helping the current state of battle readiness and military preparedness
While this is good news, the UK military is scrapping the early Typhoons with no replacement ordered, withdrawn the C130 with ordering additional Atlas, reduced the Apache fleet, the NMH order further delayed & reduced while Germany has ordered the F35A, additional Typhoons, the H145 & Italy has ordered additional F35A/B & Typhoons etc
Withdrawing aircraft with no replacement imminent seems very shortsighted particularly with a war taking place in Europe.
The Telegraph post a complete opposite picture in their article; claiming somehow Labour are responsible for underspend over the last financial year, lol. Just in the door, but it’s all Labour’s fault that industry underspent, they’re cutting everything and the Russians will be in Westminster by Christmas as a result!
Christ, the right-wing rags are outrageous these days.