The Prime Minister has announced the UK’s biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, committing to raising expenditure to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament.
The move is part of a broader strategy to bolster national security, drive economic growth, and protect British interests amid rising global instability.
The announcement, made on 25 February 2025, comes on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, highlighting the UK’s commitment to countering emerging threats.
Strengthening the UK’s Defence and Security
Prime Minister Keir Starmer outlined the rationale for the increased spending, stating:
“It is my first duty as Prime Minister to keep our country safe. In an ever more dangerous world, increasing the resilience of our country so we can protect the British people, resist future shocks and bolster British interests, is vital.”
The additional funding aims to enhance the UK’s ability to deter threats, improve military capabilities, and support global stability. As part of this approach, the government will:
- Increase investment in advanced defence technology, including artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and space capabilities.
- Boost UK defence industry growth, sustaining over 430,000 jobs and strengthening manufacturing in regions across the country.
- Improve interoperability with allies, ensuring the UK remains a leading player in NATO and European security efforts.
Redefining Defence Spending
In addition to committing to 2.5% of GDP, the government has also updated the definition of defence spending to include contributions from the UK’s intelligence and security agencies, recognising their critical role in national defence. Under this new classification, the UK will now allocate 2.6% of GDP to defence by 2027.
Funding the Defence Increase
The rise in defence spending will be funded by a reduction in Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), cutting ODA contributions from 0.5% to 0.3% of Gross National Income (GNI). The Prime Minister emphasised that while this was a difficult decision, it reflects the evolving global threat landscape and ensures resources are directed towards securing Britain’s future.
Economic and Strategic Impact
The increase in defence funding is expected to strengthen the UK’s global leadership role and support long-term economic growth. In 2023-24, defence spending contributed significantly to regional economies, with the MoD investing:
- £7.1 billion in the South East
- £6.9 billion in the South West
- £3.8 billion in the North West
- £2.1 billion in Scotland
A new Defence Industrial Strategy, set to be unveiled later this year, will further align investment in research and development (R&D) with the UK’s national security priorities.
Next Steps
As part of the UK’s renewed security strategy, the government will publish a National Security Strategy following the Spring Statement in March, ahead of the NATO Summit in June. The Prime Minister is also set to travel to Washington D.C. this week to discuss UK-US defence cooperation with President Trump, reinforcing the strategic partnership between the two nations.
In short, the UK aims to modernise its Armed Forces, rebuild stockpiles, and accelerate the deployment of cutting-edge military capabilities.
Can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, I am pleased to see foreign aid get a kicking and some more money for the Armed Forces. Does feel however like an increase of £14bn is going to be swallowed up very quickly. But hey, better than nothing
0.1% of GDP is about £2.5bn, so the increase is £5bn. Do you know where Starmers £13/14bn by 2027 is coming from?
Isn’t it the amount of additional funds during this Parliament, so until the next election?
I don’t think so, Starmer is being quoted on the BBC as £13bn more per year by 2027. Parliament ends in 2029.
That’s how I calculate it too. The increase is £5.3bn a year, so 3 years to 2027/8 would total £15.9 bn – not far off the claimed £13.4bn. I seem to remember that we get an extra £2bn this year anyway, so that might explain the gap.
Yeah, that’s the cumulative amount but Starmer said £13bn a year extra per year, not £13bn extra over 3 years. I suspect he misspoke because £13bn a year extra by 2027 gets us much closer to the 3% figure
Working from home offers flexibility, allowing individuals to manage their schedules and avoid daily commutes. It promotes a comfortable work environment, but also requires strong self-discipline and time management skills. While it can boost productivity, maintaining a healthy work-life balance is essential to
prevent burnout….. 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
7.5bn is a 0.3% increase (including the Intelligence accounting), if he gives a good chunk of that in 2026 and full in 2027 it’s about right as 13/14bn extra by 2027, but not per year.
The institute of fiscal studies states the Starmers figure are off, quite where this 13 billion figure comes from a mystery.
I’d say he’s using Sunak mathematics. He’s adding inflation and growth (3.75%) on £66bn, which would be about £2.5bn this year, over the next two years (as it’s 2027) maybe £7bn, to the extra he’s actually adding, about £6.4bn, to get the £13.4bn. [All numbers guesstimated.] Of course he’d have to be very bullish about growth to get that number, but he said that’s exactly what he was.
I know that the UK has been spending more but, prior to Starmer’s announcement today, was the UK’s official defence spending target still the 2% NATA minimum? If yes then maybe his £13/14bn is based on targets – in theory if today’s announcement hadn’t been made the UK government would only have been committed to an amount equal to 2% of GDP so the increase in the commitment using your 0.1% figure does give £12.5bn per year looking just at minimum target not what is spent in reality. Add a bit of GDP growth by 2027 and allowing a bit of margin for error in your 0.1% of GDP = £2.5bn estimate could get us to Starmer’s £13/14bn number.
If my theory is right then I’d say that it’s highly misleading to throw out a figure like that based on targets and not on what is actually currently being spent but he is a politician after all.
Perhaps he was planning to reduce to 2% and the increase is on what he was going to spend?
The increase is confirmed as 13.7 billion.
GDP 2024 was £2,848 bn, so it’s a bit more than that.
These are GDP projections. I have not run the deltas.
Year, Projected GDP (£ billions)
2024, 2,850
2025 2,936
2026 3,024
2027 3,115
2028 3,209
2029 3,305
2030 3,404
Agree, given the difficult economic circumstances the government has done exceptionally well to pull this off. It’s worth noting that their are also very hard limits to what can be spent on defence in the earn term, if we instantly went to 3% we would either have to draft a lot of people or we woukd be handing money back. You can’t just go out tomorrow and buy 100 Typhoons or 1000 Boxers.
An incremental rise by around 0.1% of GDP is about right.
0.1% per annum
I agree.
If you go too fast too soon then you just waste money.
Shame the ramp up didn’t start a few years back!
There are things such as ammo and shell making machines etc that can be ordered for future needs. So Y1 you order the plant and T2 set it up and Y3 production etc – not a real example but demand signals are phased…
There are missile parts that are long order and can be ordered once the cash flow curve is known.
Main thing is to stop army spending all theirs on a big new shiny thing….that never quite gets into service.
On shell making etc, can they not take the new Washington plant to a 2, 3 or 4 (ie weekend) shift system?
Most of the difficult economic circumstances have been created by Rachel Reeves. An increase in 2/3 years ? It’s another sound bite.
I think we could Jim, if 3% kicked in this year, it would inform the SDSR, it would allow us to spend the vast amount needed to refurbish bases to bring them back into use.
Kinloss, Leuchars, Lyneham, Royal Navy and Army facilities etc, all would require billions to expand and modernise.
Think 30 escorts, 12 SSN’s, 12 Fighter squadrons, more transports, more helicopters, more soldiers, RN and RAF.
That would require a huge financial outlay.
Even if you wanted 12SSN it realistically takes more than a decade to make them….so you could spend some money now to ramp up for AUSUK etc…..but the cash curve won’t come out for a good while….
If you went to 3% tomorrow you would have to spend an extra £17.92 billion by the end of the year another extra £18 billion next year and so on. You could not buy a single frigate, armoured vehicle or airplane for at least two years as contracts take a minimum of that long and production takes years longer. So like I say you physically could not spend 3% and the MoD can’t just keep it in the bank .
Many caoex projects will be based on cash flow near neutral milestone payments.
Seeing is believing.
So they are adding departments to the definition of defence thus increasing the appearance of increasing defence spending, rather like Osbourne did with Trident & pensions? If they gave all.of the unemployed a broom with a knife on the end could. they then ‘include the benefits systems thus at a (brush)sttoke inrease the defence budget to about 20%…
The definition of defence spending used by NATO since the 1950’s has always included military pensions, etc, etc. Osborne just rather craftily aligned the U.K. definition closer to the NATO one.
(If the moderators ever get round to ‘moderating’ my previous post you’ll see the link to NATOs website that defines military spending.)
Too slow. But there are several things worse than GDP levels. The enormous waste, gold plating, bad choices…
Quite. Do we really need more admirals than ships, more horses than tanks etc etc…. .
there is a “next parliament” timeline plan to get to 3%. That portion may be vaguer but finally, there is a hard plan for the next few years and the direction is the right one
Nope not in his speech just an “ambition to reach 3%” providing etc, etc, etc.
I am encouraged but far from pacified. It is a step in the right direction and if they NATO allies do as Mertz is proposing to help Britian and France pay for their nuclear deterrent in exchange for a NATO wide umbrella is also encouraging as long as it is syphoned off.
I don’t disagree with you it’s just that I think there does really need to be a bit of “the stick” to go with the Carrot”, prime examples are Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Italy and above all Canada. Trump advised them, Trump warned them to start to spend money on Defence.
They did very little or nothing, so tell them in no uncertain terms that France and the UK will step and provide an alternative Nuclear umbrella but as they have done zilch on conventional defence they contribute the shortfall in their contribution or …..Stand alone.
Biggest mistake the EU made was no exit strategy for under payers.
In FY 2023 /24 the US spent just over $1 trillion /3.4% on defence.
In march last year the US passed the 2025 defence budget into law at $849 billion. With f/cast GDP that’s effectively 2.9% and the GDP spend is expected to fall next year ss cash budget is forecast to only rise by a couple of $ billion while GDP keeps compounding. Medium term US is heading to 2.7 / 2.5% of GDP.
I would imagine if the US pulls the rug out from under Ukraine and heaven forbid Ukraine falls that 3% by next Parliament will be revised pretty quickly.
Not quick enough nor nearly enough but it is a step in the right direction and I can only hope it continues.
The industrial capacity also determine the pace. Had uk decided to increase to 4% by year end, it would not be spent anyway.
People keep saying this but offer no evidence. Ask the defence primes if they could handle a few billion pounds more worth of orders. Ask BAE if it wants to close the UK Typhoon production line or if an order for new Typhoons would have been welcome? We could certainly have handled 2.5% this coming year. The delay of two years will cost the country overall as we will have to cut capabilities that we need, to pay for the new capabilities requested in the SDR, and then we’ll try to replace those capabilities in two years time when the money increases a tiny bit. It’s always more expensive to cut and restore than to just keep. An immediate increase would have been far better.
Typhoons, yes. GBAD, yes. Ships, no.
Mmm we live on an island that cannot feed itself, insufficient natural resources nor power itself. How does GBAD or Typhoons help those small issues ? Yep they don’t as they all need to come via bulk sea freight, pipelines or cables which are protected by ships.
Hum… do you pay eurofighters at order at order or at delivery? True question.
I would expect milestone through order period. …
Tranche staged payments, just like everything else !
The positive is that the budget is now going in the right direction and rightly funded from foreign aid.
However, we are years late and the target of 3% needs to be reached much sooner. But a good day (relatively) for defence.
The foreign aid cut is not necessarily a good thing. Soft power still matters. Along with the near complete axing of US aid, this will leave a void that the Chinese will rush to fill……
China has huge economic problems and are already overstretched. They are welcome to fund African Spice Girl tribute bands!
Hopefully the defence review coming up soon can now announce that we will now order more frigates and fighter jets based on extra funding being available from 2027 onwards, small but welcome increase, moving to 3% is needed as soon as possible.
Still need to recruit and retain crews to put on them.
If we could lock the Norwegians in for a type 26 order, then order another batch for the Royal Navy, then everyone wins from the economies of scale for a large order…
A small batch of typhoons, to keep the production line ticking over with confirmation of the next batch of F35b’s would relatively quickly give the RAF a bit more mass…
A least the downward momentum on the defence budget has stopped….
We definitely need another batch of typhoons to replace/in addition to keeping the tranche 1. 2+ more T26 plus 5 more T31 would be a good start in my opinion.
Honestly, even three more Type 31 frigates would be huge, alongside the Norwegian contract.
It’s supposed to be an extra £13 billion a year, so perhaps 13 extra Type 26s? 😉
I’d probably go to Chile and a few others looking to sell 12 year old Type 31s from 2038 onwards. If we can get the sales we can move to continuous production without the HMT sucking wind through their teeth before asking, what if you can’t find a buyer?
BAe have ample capacity to build Typhoons. I am not sure there’s any spare ship building capacity in the short to medium term……
If we order more F35 ( which we need to for the carriers) we need to ensure they come with an isolation switch. Having them directly connected to Lockhead now makes me very nervous that they could be remotely disabled should our “ friend” in the Whitehouse decide it.
Proof that Lockheed Martin can “remotely disable” our jets? A link to a credible source will be sufficient…
If they can remotely disable ours, surely all it would require is a hack to disable theirs, therefore I don’t think such an option exists.
ALIS
BAE designed a chunk of the B variants electronics, it would have been hard to hide a shut down switch.
We know that the US can disable the F-16s that they delivered to Egypt and Jordan so they can not be used against Israel. Having the the F-35 being disabled will probably not be an issue for the UK but the US might cut us off from the supply chain etc.
I would avoid F35s for now.
Can’t Trump turn those off at will, or impose geographical limits?
Yes but only if the Tooth fairy can find find the spare time to do so, with people nowadays eating sugar filled junk I think the F35 operators are safe.
The problem is, the 10 year equipment plan is already unaffordable. This increase might make it just about affordable. Let alone any increases in big ticket items like more Typhoons
Should be able to provide a modest boost to equipment numbers, I’ll believe it when I see it! If about half the new money goes on capital spending then that will be about £25bn over 10 years. I read the black hole is about £17bn, leaving about £8bn between the services over 10 years. That might be a couple of ships for rather Royal Navy, a small order of Typhoons for the RAF and additional air defence batteries for the Army.
Remember the equipment reform apparently will save “over 10 billion” over the next decade.
That alone would remove at least half of the black hole. Even more if you count the type 32s that never ever got any funding but was just a ‘idea’.
So that £25 billion, perhaps up to £10 billion would sort the black hole, ( 5 type 32s included, so direct uplift there) then £15 billion for more kit.
This is a huge amount.
8 billion could buy you 13 Evo FREMM equivalents it’s a huge number
What could 8 billion get you
70 more challenger 3s for .5 billion
500 APCs for .9 billion
5 more T31s for 2 billion
50 more typhoons for 3.5 billion
30 AW149a for 1.1 billion
Who’s going to crew them? First they need to work on recruitment.
Don’t expect overnight orders for additional big tickets items like fast jets and Frigates.
I’m not so sure.
It will play well with Tangerine Man…
Particularly if we order some P8 & F35B and some Mk41 VLS for T31!
He likes biiiiiiig announcements – give him one!
Particularly as these are things we all know we need anyway.
I agree I think we will see the second F35b tranche ordered on Thursday for 78 aircraft… after all that does also support British industry.
Wasn’t there a hint recently that there might be an order for more Typhoons..?
It was reported on here, was it not?
Cheers CR
Do we know what the current spending on intelligence and security is?
Unless it’s less than 0.1% GDP this isn’t as much of an increase as it looks.
GCHQ’s budget is about £3.7 billion, which is about 0.15%. That would likely account for the majority of the intelligence spend. Then again they may not be counting all GCHQ activity towards the total.
They already count GCHQ in the military budget
Do you have a source for that? GCHQ funding should be part of the SIA, I have not seen any evidence that the SIA was added to the core MoD budget.
Sorry, for clarification it’s not in the MOD budget but it is counted under the GDP % of military spending under NATO rules.
Hi Jim.
Concur. I read that a little while ago, at least, that some of the SIA is included.
The SIA is 3.6bn per year according to Google AI… Just under 0.15 of GDP. Depends on what’s moved over, whole account or military cooperation only.
I read that the new money is 0.2% of gdp and in addition to that the security services will count as defence, which make up about 0.1%. So existing 2.3% + 0.2 +0.1 = 2.6%. The accountants at the treasury no doubt insisted on that in order to get to 3% whilst reducing the amount of actual new cash.
0.17% for defence only.
So we are spending 52 billion Pounds this FY?
It is expected to be £57bn this year. The increase is not until 2027 onwards.
Listen to the speech it is 2.5% by 2027 ! BBC iPlayer.
I wonder if some of the new money will arrive as early as the new financial year in April. The total increase will need to completed by the end of next year, if Starmer is to keep to his timetable.
Well, a week in politics and all that! The Commons spoke as one voice today as Starmer told the House more must be spent on defence. Trump’s mandate that Europe must pay more on defence is quickly gaining space. Now Germany is talking about independence from US protection and building up its forces at pace. I’m in two minds when it comes to Germany rearming it always ends badly. Interesting times and greater dependence on home-built equipment could result in new tank factories and a return to fewer foreign products. In my estimation, the West has about two-three years before Russia unleashes its forces once more.
The Germans (Prussians) came in handy at Waterloo.
I heard a German Green MEP advocating for Germany spending 3.5% of GDP on defence. Changed times
The US is spending $850 billion in the current FY- Europe should not compare itself with mediocre states – instead the combined European Defence budget should be above $1 trillion, reflecting the demographic size among others- In short, Britain should spend at least $100 billion, in preparations for war.
You all need to listen to all of his speech it’s very nuanced.
Well he has come out and said it the U.K policy is now NATO 1st, which probably indicates the direction of the SDR. So we can expect that we are going to pull back from the Gulf and any reinforcement of the Far East is History.
As for the increase in spending well it’s a start, but let’s be perfectly honest it just plugs the hole in the present equipment plans and that’s about it. So if we have to take on the extra task of Peacekeeping in the Ukraine that has to be either funded separately by the Treasury or Defence cuts.
IMHO I think he could have gone further and said 2.5% by 2027 and a graduated raise to 3.0% in the following 5 years I might just say yep, OK that’s not bad.
But it’s 2.5% (2.6% with extra for security / intelligence included) and maintain at that till next Parliament and then an ambition to go to 3.0% in next Parliament but subject to etc, etc, etc..
So same old, same old political Blah, Blah dressed up as good news.
On the other hand I doubt if it will impress Mr Tango one little jot ! So Starmer better invest in some real defence such as a copy of the Beano down the back of his trousers.
There is one question I would love an MP to ask and it’s this :-
“At present we are spending £3billion pa on Defence Aid to the Ukraine, so if there is a ceasefire / peace deal and we have to deploy can that money be redirected to supporting our Peacekeeping effort ?”
• “NATO first” doesn’t mean “NATO only” – we have the AUKUS commitment which U.K. Plc is going to do very well out of.
• Any peacekeeping operation in Ukraine would be financed from the Treasury’s contingency funds.
• It’ll impress the Orange Rage-Baby because he’s funding defence increases by taking money from international aid. Trump hates aid and one of the first things he did was shut-down USAID.
Let’s not deploy and put the money into real Ukrainian defence instead.
Agree. I don’t think we should deploy but we should sell Ukraine arms to better defend itself.
The UK should not deploy thousands of troops on an enduring commitment to Ukraine. Instead we should prepare for the inevitable 12-18 months post Ukraine peace deal when we all know Mad Vlad will simply re-equip, rearm, train, restock and go again. Next time the Baltics or Georgia or Ukraine….again.
Agree! Including, arming them with nuclear weapons. While Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, arming them with nuclear capabilities would change the strategic calculus significantly. However, this brings international complexities, including non-proliferation treaties and potential global repercussions. The good news is that Trump as he votes with North Korea, will not worry about Ukrainian bomb. These are difficult times!
A wonderfully phrased question.
They will still need to rearm even after a ceasefire.
The £3 billion going to Ukraine is part of the 2.3% we spend on defence and will also be incorporated in the new 2.5%. If the money stops going to Ukraine then it will have to be stent on UK defence or we would fail to make the pledge of 2.5%.
However I believe that even if there was peace tomorrow the money would continue to be sent to Ukraine until 2030. However if Ukraine was no longer at war and the money being sent was not in the form of military aid then it could not be counted under the 2.5% by NATO standards.
It’s a welcome start. Pleased to see the cross-party support across the House today, we go forward united politically, in the absence of anyone on the Reform benches.
Starmer’s intention to increase this to 3% in the next Parliament, if economic and fiscal conditions permit, sets a high bar for whoever wins the next election.
The increase is a fairly small one in the scheme of things. The defence budget will rise by £5.3 bn a year, from £59.8bn to £64.1bn. Better than nothing, but it will not result in lots of additional personnel and equipment. Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee told us last year that there is a large adverse gap between the MOD’s expenditure plans and its real-world budget. So we can expect the new money to largely disappear just to pay for recent pay increases, what’s already on order and what the MOD has announced it wants to order but can’t afford.
Militarily-informed circles say that any spare cash won’t be spent on metal bashing fighting vehicles, aircraft or ships, it will largely go on ‘transformation’ – development of AI, the space force, FPV, ISTAR and UUV drones, development of laser weapons, cyber, etc. This is Gen Walker’s ‘double the lethality of what we’ve got’ story.
Any hopes of more Typhoons, more army troops, T32 frigates and so on are apparently likely to be dashed by the SDR in favour of these transformation initiatives.
No loss having the Refirm nutters AWOL, probably getting briefed at the Russian Embassy…
… along with Labour’s Trade Union paymasters?
Yeah, I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention the last 30 years but the Russians are not quite as left wing as previously.
You’re 30 years out of date. Another Russian Troll
I could see at least one Reform MP there and another spoke later and said he went out for a comfort break during the SNP attack. Getting rather desperate when the parties attack Reform for going to the toilet. Nice to see Labour taking Reforms lead though and heading towards 3% using foreign aid money.
The Leeanderthal Man (my MP) was present.
Perhaps Nonny-Nonny0-Nigel was interviewing at RT for a new contract.
Sorry to burst your little bubble, Farage on his program tonight says he supports the Govts plan for the increase👍
He can hardly do otherwise.
If we are to send a peacekeeping force to Ukraine, then maybe keeping 15 of the tranche 1 Typhoons, with a low cost update, would provide the numbers. Same with adding an extra 30 or so Challenger 3 conversions, so we have the numbers for a peacekeeping force.
Extra conversions, if possible, would be great, it would also make a lot of sense to get BAE to retool for hull production of a slow roll-out of new C3 builds, not just for now but for any possible increase or future tank. We’d pay a premium for those of course, but it’s a premium that will need paid at some point.
It is surprising, disappointing and i would think probably unprecedented that a party leader would absent himself from the House when a major national defence statement is to be announced. It is our long parliamentary tradition that all sides of the House unite to support – or if they wish oppose – key defence and security matters. Farage let himself down and should apologise to the House when he manages to attend.
He was always going to be too lazy to be a worthwhile MP.
Keeping all the tranche 1’s until 2030 has to be a no brainer. It’s the only way we can boost RAF numbers before 2028.
The timing is very obvious, moving funds from International Aid to Defence the same week he flies over to meet Trumpy – who seems to have (illegally) shut down USAID. We’re probably going to see a string of these – Macron earlier this week was proposing that France might raise defence spending to 5%.
Starmer hoping this will help his credibility in arguing that Trump shouldn’t throw Ukraine under a bus simply so that the USA can turn a profit by traiding again with Russia.
This is very very good news, it is exactly what was needed, infact I really could not have asked for more at present..
The 2.5% for 2027 is perfect answer just the right timscale.
What I will be looking closely at now is the 3% conversion, to me the mood music is that the 3 major parties are behind the scenes looking to develop a consensus on defence and security. Why do I say that because starmers speech was pretty Apolitical, infact he went so far as to complement the Conservative Party on Ukraine and he did not mention what the great Cameron did in 2010. Also we have both other parties seeding the thought around 3%. Starmer was also clear that a defence and security review was coming to parliament for debate…that’s not the same as a the executive simply publishing a defence review. Essentially what he said between the lines was essentially the strategic defence review as a single piece of work had now been superseded.
So I suspect we will see the wider defence and security review delivering what 2.5% will provide in the near term, how our security services will act, including political and sup kinetic conflict, what our stimulus of the military industrial complex will look like and the structure of how over the coming year the parties will knock out a debate to find a consensus on 3% ( because for that pain a consensus will be needed with no sniping from the sidelines).
In the immediate future I suspect we will see ( before the defence and security review )
1) Medium rotor order
2) typhoon order for around 30-50 aircraft and with a plan in the review to move up to 7- 8 front line squadrons
3) some major working on making the infantry brigades in 1 division deployable with CS CSS
4) The top up order of F35Bs to 78 ( I suspect this may be a back pocket..announcement at the trump meeting )
5) an upscaling of the MBT order to 200+
in the review suspect we will see
1) 3rd Division going to 3 heavy brigades, with more MBTs and maybe if we are lucky a warrior lifex or a cannon for boxer
2) strengthen of the infantry brigades in 1st division, with a new APC type full CS and CSS ( fires is really important here)
3) RAF to increase squadron numbers aiming for 7 typhoon and 3 F35
3) 6 AEW aircraft
4) an order for more T31 and the MRSS order for 6 confirmed
5) a new mine warfare and patrol fleet
6) a proper army based drone capability for all brigades
7) proper drone capability for all RN escorts
8) tomahawks deployed on surface warships
9) significant war stocks of all munitions as well as a sustained industrial base increase
Long term with the the 3% debate I expect the next parliament consensus to be
1) increased size of Nuclear deterrent, possibly a joint project with France for an airborne element to the deterrent
2) moving to 20 frigates and more than 6 AAW destroyers
3) increase in numbers of SSNs
4) conversions of the carriers to support catapult launched heavy drones
5) moving to 12 fast jet squadrons
6) 12 AEW aircraft in 2 squadrons
7 12 ASW aircraft inn2 squadrons
8) increasing the number of fully deployable infantry Brigades in 1st division to 3+ the air assault brigade
J….what have you been drinking!!!! I’ll have a gallon of it.
Even half of that without further cuts and I’d bite your hand off. That seems like a money no object list, and as I mentioned above, 2.5% is full of stuff dragging the budget down. And I missed AUKUS and I recall 12 BILLION over a decade just to give BAES to develop GCAP, never mind buy it.
I’m waiting to see what else they cut, after their performance the other month.
Sorry to be downbeat.
I’m going all optimistic.. I even think somehow starmer is going to keep the Donald inside.. in the end it’s an 8.5% increase by, but I reckon from the tone of the whole debate and a few little things starmer mentioned that I suspect we are going to see an increase every year after that as well. I don’t think we will stop at 2.5% in 27 I think you will see new targets for 28 and 29 so it’s essentially an easy skip to 3% for the next term. So I would well see 2.8% by the time of the next election… it was buried under a lot of long boring questions but later in the debate one of starmers answers was, it’s going to take a lot of big sacrifices to get to 3% but we will be having the discussions… so I think personally by the end of this parliament we will see defence spending increased by about 20-22% essentially a step change.
Did not see the rest of it.
We will see starting in the SDSR.
Finally, we should stop remaining dependent on the USA, the leaders of the world see England as the canoe of the USA, and behind the scenes in Washington we say that to ourselves!
yes please Daniele, I’ll have a just pint too please-it’s a school night!
As much as I like everything I just read, it feels like that list is scratching the upper limit for what is even possible at 4%. You have to remember, 2.5% to 3% is ‘only’ a 20% increase.
The move from 2.3% to 3% is actually 30.4% it’s huge.
I also think people are forgetting the laws of efficiency… cheap was and is never efficient.. we had vastly diminishing returns on our smaller budget.. big budget brings bigger efficiencies.
It is more than that as you take DNE off.
So you go from 1.8% to 2.5% on conventional forces.
Which is a proper uplift.
I don’t think the increased expenditure will get even half of that – but do agree it would be nice. I especially think it’s time that the UK, France and hopefully a couple of other European nations boost our nuclear deterrent.
2.5% may be enough to stand still, if the SDR bill isn’t too high. It isn’t enough to buy anything extra at all.
We might get that if they doubled the defence budget. But at 3% you’re not going to see the purchase of extra, large expensive items, like ships or jets.
3% is about £20b extra at today’s prices, so I’d be a bit disappointed if it didn’t generate any real growth.
What have you been smoking? That list would be 50bn+ a year not a few quid down the back of the sofa. Lay off the glue.
Consider this my glum fellow commentariat .7% of GDP was 18.7 billion pounds in 2023 ..and you get an extra 3+ billion a year just standing still so its it’s going to be a lot more in 2027 so let’s look at the actual extra money… if we increase our percentage of defence spending by a .1 to .2,per year until we hit 3% GDP the loss to inflation is insignificant.. inflation is only an issue if we reduce the %GDP..
So actually how much cash are we talking
23/24 53.9 billion
24/25 56.9 billion
25/26 59.8 billion
26/27 67.6 billion ( forecast from expert)
28/29 80 billion ( forecast from expert)
29/30 97 billion ( finger in the wind with to 2.7%)
30/31 114 billion ( finger in the wind 2.9%
Over a decade you are actually talking vast amounts of cash as if you consider the equipment budget is 50% of expenditure .. you are looking at an extra 12-15 billion for equipment up until 2030 then from 2030 to 3040 you would have a good 10 billion a year more on equipment if you expand the annual costs by 50%
Essentially the comments it would cost an extra 50 billion in capital to buy the stuff on the lest … my answer is over a decade the amount of increase capital expenditure is vast. Because you get the extra money every year..
2.5% won’t cover a fraction of that…..
agreed Jonathan- think this would require circa 3% of gdp at least though?
I would agree with most of that but would add some form of ballistic missile defence.
Any increase In defence spending Is welcome. However, Is this announcement going far/quickly enough?
Thoughts on how best to spend the extra funding?
Hopefully we will move to 3% sooner rather than later as this is a number that would change the capabilities of our Armed Forces In a big way.
Everything is financially shkaey right now. We have to put the top priorities of the SDR on a more sound footing, as best we can. Keep fingers crossed there are no large new priorities suggested. That’s about the best we can hope for..
Give Trident back it’s own budget and then see a real rise in spending ion conventional weaponry.. The reason we don’t seem to get bangs for bucks is that a certain government/ Chancellor decided to include Trident in the main Defence budget effectively cutting Defence spending as we had known it for many years and look where we are now! Alternatively, raise Defence spending to 5%, in this day and age even 2.5% is a joke
So when it goes to 3%, it’ll actually be 2.9% for defence, what with .1% of it being for the security services.
I can’t see that being all of the SIA, it would be a 1/3 cut. If it’s defence-only intelligence spending, then inclusion may be an actual money and/or capability bump.
Devil will absolutely be in the details with that one, maybe more so than with anything else as we can’t see the end results in ships, tanks, planes or on the parade square.
True. It may be that they’ll stop trying to fiddle the books and the budget will go to 3.1%, as an example.
As/if we move towards 3%, there will have to be a realisation that wars cannot be fought purely off enablers, drones and cyber. There will, under current plans, absolutely need to be an increase in the things you reference.
Anyway, I doubt we’ll get there. The 3% target by the mid 2030s is there to come into force after the Trump presidency. The hope will be that with him out of the window, there’ll be less feet being held to the fire, despite the Russian danger.
No I think he was clear the .1% is separate he said 2.5% in 2027 then a discussion to 3% and .1% extra for security services .
what’s odd is that they didn’t begin to significantly increase defence spending way back in 2010, when they started poking the bear
No one is poking the bear. That’s Russian rhetorical and Russian propaganda intending to justify illegal invasions of sovereign nations Russia itself had a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty.
What’s really odd is that they still aren’t increasing it. April 2027 is over two years away.
Sorry but actions did the UK do to poke the diminished bear in 2010? seem to remember efforts from the west to improve relations back then, you seemed to forget even west helped clean up Russias decommissioned Nuclear subs when Russia could not afford to lol.
Sorry but actions did the UK do to poke the diminished bear in 2010? seem to remember efforts from the west to improve relations back then, you seemed to forget even west helped clean up Russia’s decommissioned Nuclear subs when Russia could not afford to.
IMHO the most important part was his reply to Badenoch where he confirmed the “NATO 1st” policy. If that is embedded in the SDR it’s bye to Bahrain, UAE and all the other small outposts overseas. Which does sort of help the budget a bit, fewer tasking releases resources for other Tasks.
As for Thursday if I were Starmer I’d probably remind Mr Trump of what we buy and maybe going to be buying from US. Meanwhile as for the present mess it’s time we actually coordinate more with France. It looks like they are committing their Tactical Nuclear Weapons to provide a Tactical Nuclear umbrella for Europe to replace the US one.
FYI The UK CASD is the only Nuclear force actually tasked to NATO (Gulp).
I’d say a more reasonable posture would be to remain ‘East of Suez’ but keep to the ‘West of Malacca’. Having a presence in the Middle East is very much worth while given how much unrest in ME affects Europe. Arming the entire Arabian peninsula also keeps our military industrial base healthy. All for a modest military force: one or two warships and a few minehunters, half a squadron of Typhoons, and maybe the occasional troop visit.
Once you go further East however the calculus starts to change. The military commitment it would take to have a credible military force against china would frankly leave the cupboards bare. And for what, what do we actually gain? Why support the US against China when their own support against Russia is waning.
Australia and Japan we should support to a great extent given our burgening partnerships, but direct military force simply isn’t worth it for us.
I agree our wider strategic interests are really north and south Atlantic as well as the Indian Ocean.. the pacific really holds little strategic value or interest to us if we are not directly supporting the US.
agreed Jonathan
I wonder if that might depend on our relationships with the EU and the CPTPP. If we find our trade with the CPTPP growing faster than our trade with the EU, we might decide that the Pacific is indeed of strategic value.
I think it’s really important to note you can have very good trade with little or no security interest, trade is more about soft power. Let’s be honest the US was pretty good at that approach with Europe until Japan decided to take a pop at them and our security requirements aligned for WW2 and started to align after that around fighting the world wide international communist movement..there are no more internationalist communists left…
But to just trade your best bet is neural as you can be…India is the new best “not our issue guv, but buy our stuff” trading nation.
I’d follow Canada’s habit and re-announce to Mr Chump the stuff we already have in the plan, such as the next 36 F35Bs, plus new supplied for tracked HIMARS etc.
I didn’t see anything about increasing the number of platforms in the military. The UK’s biggest problem is that it just doesn’t have enough “stuff” if it had to fight a peer adversary, not a lack of sophistication in its platforms.
SDR will let us know. One thing I’m hopeful for is extra jets and ships as unions there have a bit of sway over current government. Plus of course it’s a good idea regardless for growth, resiliency and a hundred other reasons.
Army is a case of fingers-crossed that there’s a plan somewhere.
For those thinking of voting for Reform, where was Farage during the announcement in parliament?
I voted Reform last time.
This is not something that will make me regret that vote, nor many others.
How many other important announcements have been made over the decades in the Commons when so and so MP that one is against was absent?
Would be interesting to see a study?
Is this the UKDJ or a UK politics journal?
I’m going back to military matters, but your pot stirring comment compelled me to post.
Sorry.
Not as if other parties have actually voted against defence increases is it? Sorry no more political points 🙃
Another Wedgetail would be nice, I believe the recommendation was for 3 but only 2 got ordered?
No, 5 radars were ordered but the order for airframes was cut to 3 so we have 2 radar sets sitting in a warehouse somewhere doing nothing.
No, 5 reduced to 3.
I think reducing the army to 70,000 is the biggest damage done to our forces dont you think Daniele?
No. Actually.
As I favour a RN, RAF, Intelligence first posture.
For the Army, it is the lack of CS CSS to get best use out of that figure.
Whether we have 70k, 80k, 90k, without the right organisation and enablers what difference does it really make facing Russia when other NATO nations line up alongside us?
An Army of 70k, well equipped, with enablers for its Brigades, is better than an 80k plus one without . An Army should be measured in deployable brigades and firepower, not just headcount.
I feel we make a greater contribution with niche assets, expeditionary forces, sea and air power, especially in the north and GIUK, and with the capability the carriers could give, if funded properly.
For me, the reduction of the RN from 35 to 14 escorts, SSN from 12 to 7, the dismantling of the bulk of the RFA, and also the RAF, 22 Fast Jet Sqns to 9, and associated cuts to transport, MPA, and ISTAR assets has wrecked us more.
Agree, with the army it should be tasked with providing 7 fully deployable brigades with CS CSS for all brigades and the head count should be focused on delivering that as efficiently as possible..if the army can prove that’s not possible the headcount should be adjusted after the focused work.
Fair points as usual but I think we should be going back to 100K for battle fatigue, expand the Gurkha’s might be the quickest .
In the end Starmer had no choice but go big on defence spending, otherwise he had no chance of making an impact in Washington. An almost immediate 2.5% with a goal of 3% was really the minimum after Macron’s remark that France considering 5%, albeit with a notable of lack of detail on how and when given that France financial position is no better than the UK’s! The devil is in the detail, economists are pointing that depending how the calculations are done, it could mean anything from £6bn to £13bn extra a year for the MOD from 2027. I have a suspicion that it will be the former. But at least the SDR team now has a firm’ish number to work with, lets see what they can squeeze out of it- it looks fairly sure that the Army will do best, with a few scraps thrown to the RAF and RN. But we know that an awful lot of the money is going to be spent on AI, missile and UAV defences, space, infrastructure and munition stocks, and only a small proportion on a few extra guns, AFV’s, aircraft and ships.
Yes I don’t think the SDR announcements will be sexy enough for many. A focus on industry, logistics, and stocks. All sorely needed but do not feature in fantasy fleet lists.
In that regard, I’d be happy with a firm order for F35Bs, more air defence, under sea infrastructure protection, and IFVs for the army. Anything else will have to wait for more money.
If you believe over two years is nearly immediately ask yourself how much changed in the last two months? Do you still think two years almost immediate?
Starmer specifically stated 13-14 billion.. although in debates and political discourse they talk % of GDP in the proper treasury planning they only use actual amounts of money.. so it’s 14 billion in 2027+ the standard annual rises for inflation ( which is 3-5 billion a year for 25/26 and 26/27 ( so probably 20+ billion where we are now.. I have seen expert commentators stating it will be 80 billion total for 27 financial year).
3% has entered the chat
Yes, yes, yes. Thank heavens it’s at least back on the agenda again.
£13 billion extra a year by 2027 should deliver
Deeper stocks of ammunition
Deeper stocks of spares
Small uptick in hardware, ideally 5 Wedgetails AWACS moving to 7-9 by 2030,
9 Poseidon MPA now and an additional 5-6 by 2030 (£1.2 billion)
5 more Type 31s (£2 billion)
6 SAMP/T batteries £2.4 billion
Additional 2-3 type 26s (£1.6-2.4 billion) especially if Norway purchases 6 type 26s that should really help to keep platform costs down.
24 tranche 4 typhoons by 2030 (£3.6 billion)
27 F35Bs (3.2-3.3 billion) by 2029
Retain tranche 1 typhoons
GCAP annual development budget (1.2 billion/ annum)
Archer SPGs x50-
All C2s to C3 and all tanks fitted with trophy aps and adequate trophy sub munitions – (300 million)
Additional 24 Apache Es (£400 million)
Munitions – hellfire for Apache, brimstone, storm shadow, paveway, MLRS, artillery shells, missiles for mk41 vls- LRASM X150 missiles, ASROC, sea and land ceptor- get hundreds and hundreds.spear 3, martlett etc etc get as many as possible.
All should be achievable with 2.5% especially as moving towards 3%>
If government cut welfare bill they could easily save £40 billion a year. The fact is we have 3.1 million adult age people on universal welfare benefit, millions of those have no physical, mental or health reasons not to be working.
It isn’t £13bn extra year. The extra 0.2% is around £6bn. It isn’t clear how he arrived at the £13bn number, but it isn’t accurate. He may have gotten it mixed up with the total we spend on foreign aid.
We were fearing additional cuts due to current plans not being fully funded. Hopefully that won’t happen and we will see an increase in mass, but it will be modest until the budget is upped again. It is possible that the increase to 3% may be planned properly with cross party consensus, then perhaps we’ll see some of the increases you mention above.
The biggest change for me is the recognition in Parliament that we have under funded defence and that it needs to be reversed. That is a significant moment.
No the expert commentary is making it clear with the general i grow it will be a hell if a lot.. the defence budget grows 3 a year organically. Starmer stated a 14 billion increase purposely.
It will be interesting to see how the SDSR comes out. If this money is just going to kit then it is being wasted. There needs it to be an increase in mass.
As others have said, it’s not 13/14 billion per year. Ir’s Reeves arithmetic again. It’s more like 4/5 billion with inflation at 3 per cent so what increase?
When you average it out over a decade growth on GDP and inflation tend to balance out so increasing the % of GDP should not be interpreted with inflation loss.. it’s not taking in all the dynamics its why defence spending goes up every year but has been reducing in total GDP defence spending was only 28 billion in 2000 but was about 2.5% by 2011 it was 45 billion but only about 2.2% of GDP. By the 2030s 3% of GDP will be well over 100 billion…
Yes, but what will it buy? The purchasing power of the pound goes down over time. My guess is that this extra cash fills the already announced equipment funding gap, but not much more.
Well as to that, it’s the other side of the equation the Italian navy just ordered 2 FREMM EVO for around .6 billion each ( cutting edge ASW, with area defence and ABM capabilities).now the original FREMMS with far less capability still cost .5 billion a decade previously… so the Italian navy has managed to keep ship cost inflated down…
the French ordered 530 good APCs for .9 billion.. we can purchase challenger 3s for around 5 million each so we could get that remaining 70 challenger 2s converted to 3s for say .4 billion .. giving us the ability to field 3 MBT regiments. So yes we can do a ton with that money because the more you order and the longer the production runs the cheaper stuff is.. UK defence procurement is so inefficient because of small buys and limited in year budgets.
Longer production runs don’t always make for a cheaper ticket price. A new Typhoon still cost 80+M after 20+ years of production.
Yes Robert but remember that 80 million 20 years later is far less money than 80 million 20 years ago…so if they price stays close to the same over a long run it’s actually a lot cheaper…
Anyone else clock Starmer saying the SDR will be published in weeks?
Foreign aid was very badly spent anyway and soft power is nonsense. The only thing in the world that matters is hard power. Personally I would have trimmed overseas aid to 0.1% to cover emergency programmes only.
It’s a mive in the right direction, but my gut feel is that it’s too little, too late.
This aint really making sense though is it?
The 0.2% increase isn’t near the £13.4bn figure he spouted on about.
Starmer: “That means spending £13.4bn more on defence every year from 2027”
Thats actually not a 0.2% increase. Its actually ~ £5.7bn
We need some clarity which number it is. £13.4bn increase would bring us closer to 2.8% of GDP
Hi Andrew because GDP is on trend always going up.. and how you work it varies… you can only really measure % of GDP a good financial year after the year in question so what starmer actually stated was we will increase defence spending in 2027 by 14 billion.. most expert commentators also noted that defence spending would be in the mid 65 billions at that point anyway even without committing more of a GDP % so potentially you may see the defence budget hit 80 billion in 27/28 if 2.5% is committed.. remember in 2000 2.5% was 28 billion and in 2011 2.2% was 45 billion..
It’s a ton of money.
To little to late. This should have been done two years ago.
To little to late.
Can we start by buying a couple of second hand B737’s for the two AESA radars we have in store?
I think a lot of people are potentially significantly underestimating how much this will be.. a lot of people are looking at the 2023 GDP figures and reading .2% of that.
First off remember that even to stand still it drop as a % of GDP defence spending always trends up a lot per decade. In 2000 defence spending was actually close to 2.5% to 2.8% ( depending on methodology) but was only 28 billion, by 2011 as a total it was lower 2.2 to 2.5% ( depending on methodology) but the actual amount had increased significantly to 46 billion…
So we need to listen to what is actually being predicted… even to stay the same sort of % of GDP the defence budget goes up around 1-3 billion a year there are estimates that by 2027 the budget would be in the mid 60 billions before any increase in percentage of GDP and what starmer actually stated was we will increase defence spending in 2027 by 14 billion a year.. so even a number of commentators that don’t like labour are stating the defence budget will be up to the 80 billion mark.. if we move to 3% by the early 2030s we will be looking at well north of 100 billion.. and for any who say that is fantasy land the 2000 budget was 26billion and was well over 2.5%….that same level of commitment in 2011 would have been over 50 billion…
Thanks mate.
I’ve missed anyone posting on where Trump thinks that increase in spending would be spent… if NATO MS did all increase their spending.
More F35s ordered? kerching $
Abrams? Kerching $
Chinooks? Kerching $
Blackhawks? Kerching $
Bar ships and subs, American industry has been pushing for a bonanza and their toy boy is beginning to make it happen;
Well, personally, I’d take Japanese K1s, South Korean panthers, HK weapons, CV90s, our own T26 with a reformed Cdo Bde and its enablers along with a rejuvenated, (vomit) Airborne Bde.
Wherever this money gets spent, God in Heaven, do not spend it in America.
Utter smoke and mirrors to try and impress Trump and do some virtue signalling. – its not even an extra £15Bn between now and 2029 alongside the already planned increase to 2.5% by 2030 that the previous Tory government had already implemented. This is simply underwhelming in reality and very far from what a Security Council global power should be spending in the present environment.
Any increase in defence spending is good however, too little and too late.
For years I have, and continue to do so, lambast various governments (particularly Labour for numerous reasons) for a dereliction of duty on defence. Either for idealogical, or monetary reasons.
However I will eat humble pie and say that today marks a major sea change in official attitudes around defence, in no small part due to President Trump indirect influence. And mark my words, this is a good thing. Boris foreshadowed this a couple of years ago, but between Trump, Ukraines slow motion losing of the war, and the general sense of European (in particular) military weakness, today we are seeing minds sense the urgency of national defence.
Thank God, and about time. Now let’s see what bang we get for that buck.
The PM looked gutted today that he cut the foreign aid budget, to pay for the increase in Defence spending . Still I agree he’s done the right thing ,which is the first time since coming into office .Although 2.5% is no great shakes but it’s a start of time is on our side 🙏 A lot of is own MPs are disappointed in is decision . Found it quite comical that one of is MPs said he was short sighted has many Country’s relied on our foreign aid budget . I personally think she’s short sighted when our own people are are struggling to pay bills and can’t afford to eat, and our pensioners are been Frozen, and Farmers are getting a kicking. And all this coming from someone on £91,000 year. Still let’s hope the PM trip to USA goes well and Trump sticks with NATO members rather than leaning towards Putin. God help Starmer if Trump says 2.5% -3% not enough .
The foreign aid budget also pays for UK overseas territories like the Falklands. It is money well spent. Just to many BS myths about why and how its spent.
No problem with the Falklands has that’s British .But when sending money to the likes of India who have their own Space programme etc ,that’s no Myth .
100% Robert.
Again, we are all debating about the symptoms rather than real solution to the European security. The removal of Vladimir Putin would constitute a lasting solution to the security of Europe and that involves several issues:
His removal will end the Russian Aggressive Expansionism as an instrument foreign policy. Putin has been associated with a foreign policy that seeks to expand Russian influence through military aggression, as seen in Ukraine, Georgia, etc. and the annexation of Crimea. His removal might lead to a significant reduction in belligerent actions against neighboring countries, thus contributing to a more stable European security landscape.
His removal will present Russia with the opportunity for Reform. The post Putin leadership could potentially be more open to reform and engagement with European countries. A new administration may prioritise diplomatic relations, fostering trust and cooperation rather than confrontation, which could lead to collaborative security efforts and stability in Eastern Europe.
The demise of Putin’s regime might lead to the reduction of Hybrid threats. Under Putin’s regime, Russia has employed hybrid warfare tactics, including disinformation campaigns and cyber-attacks aimed at destabilising EU member states. A change in leadership might result in a shift away from such tactics, thereby reducing the hybrid security threats that currently undermine confidence and cohesion within Europe.
His demise could lead to the restoration of International Norms. Putin’s actions have often violated international laws and norms. His removal could lead to a renewed commitment to uphold these principles, promoting a rules-based international order. This could reassure European nations about their sovereignty and territorial integrity, helping to secure peace and stability.
If NATO survives in the same format the next 4 years, then there is a need to strengthening NATO and EU cohesion. Putin’s aggressive stance has prompted NATO to strengthen its eastern flank, while the EU has sought to unify against perceived Russian threats. The removal of Putin could alleviate some of the existential fears that unify these alliances, allowing for a more strategic approach to security that could prioritise cooperation over militarisation.
The removal of his regime will diminish the Russian support for Authoritarian Regimes. Putin’s leadership has been characterised by a support for other authoritarian regimes, which destabilise regions within Europe and beyond. His removal might lead to a decrease in Russian backing for such regimes, promoting democratic governance and stability throughout Europe.
His removal will lead to a shift in domestic political Dynamics. The prospect of new leadership in Russia could foster a change in domestic politics, potentially leading to greater political pluralism and a more constructive relationship with the West. A Russia that is more politically stable and domestically focused is less likely to engage in aggressive foreign policies.
Energy Security Reassessment. The reliance on Russian energy exports has been a significant security concern for Europe. The removal of Putin could lead to a reorientation of energy policies in Europe, diversifying energy sources and reducing dependence on Russian oil and gas, thereby enhancing energy security.
Historical examples suggest that regime changes can lead to significant shifts in a nation’s foreign policy. If a new government is less nationalistic and militaristic, this could contribute to a more peaceful Europe in the long run.
Equipped to the hilt, Ukraine is in a strong position to contribute to the downfall of the Putin regime. With the Ukrainian military now within striking distance of Moscow, what they require is bold, visionary support from Europe.
conservative plans were not fully costed depended on rather suspect maths ( they were going to tank the election what ever happened so didn’t really need to do more to layout spending plans assuming high growth to pay for everything)
We need to wait for defence review really but the money had to come from somewhere at least now is a plan for getting to 2.5% in 2027/28 instead of possibly 2029/30.
The government has clarified 13.4 billion is the difference between defence spending of £66.3 billion in 2024/25, and the £79.7 billion it is now expected to increase to in 2027/28. (this is the NATO qualifying spend rather than the defence budget spend so different figures)
( depends if fiscal forecast is accurate/ thing like tariff barrier etc are not a factor with USA)
( its a bit of fudge as it assumes the government was going to freeze defence spending as a percentage – most people were expecting some defence spend increases with the defence review anyway)
Control the air control the battlespace. Investment needs to be focussed on airspace dominance – IADS, drones, EW, additional FJ Squadrons. Ukraine has shown that more troops are irrelevant if they can get hammered above from FPV and fibre optic FPVs. Airspace needs complete lockdown – without it ground forces are toast.
Let’s really consider what 2.5% means..and remember we have not even hit 2.29 % even with the increases we have so far..
“Maria Eagle, the Minister of State for Defence, responded on 13 November 2024 with the following figures: For 2024-25, “total defence spending is expected to be £64.4 billion, equating to 2.29% of GDP. This will rise to £67.7 billion in 2025-26, or 2.30% of GDP.”
So the 0.01% change between 2024/25 and 25/26 equated to 3.3 billion pounds. We will be spending 67.7 billion in 25/26 then by 2027/28 it will jump by 0.2% GDP this will take it to over 80 billion a year.. I’m not sure where everyone is getting it’s an extra 5-6 billion when we moved the budget by 3.3 billion just to move from 2.29 to 2.30 percentage of GDP.
This is a hell of a lot of money it’s many 10s of billions to the equipment budget in this decade if we move to 3% in 2030 we will have an extra 10-20 billion in the equipment budget every year..