The United States has publicly welcomed the UK’s decision to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, with US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth calling it “a strong step from an enduring partner.”
Hegseth, a key figure in President Trump’s administration, confirmed on social media that he had spoken with UK Secretary of State for Defence John Healey, who reaffirmed the British government’s commitment to increasing its defence budget. Hegseth also suggested that the UK intends to push beyond the 2.5% target in the future.
This endorsement follows Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s recent announcement that the UK will raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027, with a long-term ambition of reaching 3% in the next parliament. The policy has been positioned as a response to increasing global instability, including Russian aggression in Ukraine and broader geopolitical tensions.
While the spending increase had already been made public, Hegseth’s statement marks the first direct US government reaction, signalling strong support from Washington. The Biden administration had previously encouraged European NATO allies to boost their defence budgets, and the Trump administration’s renewed emphasis on military strength appears to align with the UK’s policy shift.
The UK’s planned defence budget expansion includes funding for new military capabilities, a reinvigorated defence industrial strategy, and a greater focus on high-tech warfare.
The British government has also confirmed that its intelligence and security services will be included under the new spending framework, pushing the effective total to 2.6% of GDP by 2027.
Hegseth’s comments reaffirm the close strategic alignment between the US and the UK, particularly as European security remains a major priority. With NATO members under growing pressure to meet or exceed the 2% GDP defence spending threshold, the UK’s commitment positions it as one of the leading military spenders in Europe.
I suppose we have to admit this is good news, but it all seems terribly meek in face of the challenges. 2.5% of GDP has been being promised since the early 2010s, and we’ve barely scraped above 2% in all that time, and most of what has been added has had to be used to fill budgetary black holes. In fact, much of what is promised out to 2027 is just more bean-counting – we’re at 2.2%, + 0.1 – 0.2% from the Overseas development budget, plus “including” things that didn’t previously come in under the defence budget… Ah, 2.5% Just like that. And what of 3% ? Where will that be found? Via the contraction in the UK economy, so that don’t actually have to find that money at all?
The reality is, the government is still refusing to make the hard choices it has absolutely no option but to take. Big, politically sensitive budgets are going to have to suffer (social security, for example). And what of the billions that were poured into the banks in 2008-10, of which scarcely a penny has been reimbursed? Tens of billions? What is doubly surprising is that, if the government committed to 3%, set up a “bazuka” fund (like it did for the banks), most of this money is going be injected directly into the defence industrial base, creating 10s of thousand of well-paid jobs, and ensuring greater strategic security through home- or ally-based supply chain development. Instead, due to inflation, these empty promises of 2.5% will equate with an almust-nul increase in actual defence dollars (pounds).
It’s just not serious.
I tend to agree with all of that. Why couldn’t the Prime Minister find £6bn to hit the target this April? I don’t believe that wasn’t possible.
No one has ever promised 2.5% in the early 2010’s the only promise made was 2%. The budget was 2.7 in 2010 before Cameron cut it. SDR 98 stated 2.5% on core military which was also a cut.
The military could not effectively spend more than 2.5% in the short term.
2.7 -> 2.0% to fund foreign aid!
I do think the 2.5% should be immediate so that somethings can just get done with a 0.1%/annum ramp up from there.
Problem is the budget is already done and the foreign aid budget has been allocated.
Some won’t have been spent and that money can be pulled over.
I’m making over $20k a month working part time. i kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so i decided to look into it. well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
this is what i do….. 𝐰𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
They could Jim. If the Government set out a clear funding model of 2.5 % from now, it would directly inform the SDSR.
Large sums need to to spent on upgrading military housing and base infrastructure, bringing underused bases back on line and ready for expanded forces.
The point being, theres lots of defence rebuilding foundation work, that could be started tomorrow morning quite frankly.
Cook, I still don’t know why the big internet companies don’t get taxed more realistically on their ‘UK earnings’. That would be a great source of Government revenue.
The big problem is shutting down the Irish and other corporation tax havens.
When you do that the incentive to move tax out of jurisdiction fades.
Perhaps a witholding tax?
That would attract US tariffs. If we were in the EU we could probably get away with it like France but not on our own.
The challenges suggest that we realistically need to be thinking about 4 – 5 %
Some of that needs to be spent on rebuilding our defence industry.
The only way to raise enough money is to tax the wealthy and big corporates.
Why not 40%?
Good luck with that
Morally I agree with you. Personally I think corporation tax for large companies (e.g. with before-tax profits over, say, £1 million) should be 40-50%.
If they don’t want to pay then they could either increase staff salaries, invest in their equipment, facilities, training of staff etc – either way is a win! That’s what happened decades ago.
But, pragmatically, increasing corporation tax that much would simply drive a lot of businesses abroad and would put off other companies from investing in the UK.
In this day and age of generally low corporate tax almost worldwide, and tax havens e.g. Ireland et al, the only real way it would work would be to convince all countries (or at least the G20) to increase their corporation tax rates by the same amount e.g. 40-50%.
With the likes of Trump in office, that’s really not going to happen, though.
Shame really, as we could a) invest more in defence and b) if every country did this they would eliminate their budget deficits overnight and also all but eliminate their debts within 20 years. It would only work if all (or most) countries did this, however, which won’t happen.
Or cut the welfare bill. There was a plausible study on this issue published by the guardian I think of all places that stated 3+ million working age adults receive universal credit. If we reduce that by 1 million and get those people back into work than the UK will be £40 billion per annum better off. That would pay for a lot of new defence capability and infrastructure
It’s very serious. It’s a fundamental government change of attitude and priorities beyond the budget announced. The 2.5% is a starting point. And it is coming earlier. I don’t think any of us expected it before 2030. The defence budget is now only going one way. Up. And that alone is a big shift compared to the last 30 odd years. It’s not going to mean a massive increase in the size of the Army or shed loads more fast jets and warships overnight. But a reverse from endless cuts. The 10-year equipment plan will be more affordable. New tech investment. Especially drones, long-range weapons, home defence, ISTAR. Projects like Tempest and the RNs Future Air Dominace System will now be feeling much more secure. A new defence industrial strategy, setting up our Armed Forces and the industrial base to a war ready state. It is a big step change. And it’s been a long time coming.
It might seem like nitpicking BUT…
To say that “scarcely a penny has been returned “ of money used to bail out banks is really not true.
As the government has both steadily sold off its shares in the banks and recieved dividends on its holdings.
In the case of Lloyds just over £20bn was used to bail them out and the pay back in share sales and dividends was around £21 bn. It’s not a profit because there is gilt interest to the BOE on the borrowed cash but it’s hardly “scarcely a penny”. In the case of NatWest Group (formerly RBS), the bail out was £46bn and so far around £20 has been recovered with the gov still owning just under 10% of the bank (worth around £3.5 bn today). So likely to nominally get around half the cash back, again not great but certainly not “scarcely a penny).
Hi Robert. Well said. You’re right, 2.5% is a starting point, and I agree that probably the only way is up. But by the way stated of achieving this, very little new money is actually going to come between now and 2027. I don’t blame the new labour government, and I think Tory mismanagement has landed us where we are. But I don’t think, even if finding solutions in the current economic situation is a sheer clusterfcuk, that vagueness and allusions are an acceptable remedy. But I agree with everything you say.
The cut to foreign aid was necessary.
The lefties can wail and cry but the facts are that the USA underwrote our collective defence.
The withdrawal of the USA from Europe at a time when there is an active war in Europe means we have to step up.
Our foreign aid budget was miss-spent. It was ripe for cuts.
To get to 3% we have to cut welfare bill and look at efficiency within all governmental departments.
Defence budget needed to significantly go up.
Mr Bell, but has the US already started to withdraw from Europe? It’s just rhetoric at the moment to force up spending by the Europeans. I have yet to see a single US military asset return to the US.
And they won’t. Its Trump shock tactics. And it’s worked. RAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall and others will be chocka with Americans for years to come.
Humanitarian aid in itself is a very powerful weapon, It’s something we do that gives us a lead in the soft power league and It’s also the right thing to do helping those less fortunate in so many country’s but I agree that certain cuts are overdue, let’s just hope we make the right ones.
Next step for China is overseas bases, we should be very warry where we make those cuts.
I agree that humanitarian aid gives us a soft power edge, but now is the time we need to build up our hard power.
Soft power is hugely important. We can however build a lot of roads, schools, hospitals, bridges and other essentials plus train locals for 6bn a year. We can even find money down the back of sofa for brown bags full of “incentives”.
A lot of that soft power was paid for from elsewhere (MOD, DBT, other FCDO line items etc.) to begin with and will most likely continue. Disaster relief we will always find a way, and the accounting was so murky and the rules for spend so arbitrary that our recent efforts may not have even been from or counted towards the 0.5%.
The expectation was that DfiD would become its own department continuing the good work from it’s FCO days, but more so with the mountains of extra cash. Instead, it lost the plot trying to maintain the magic 0.7% (then less). The re-merging and cuts were inevitable and I’m not so certain it’ll end up a loss for the UK or the recipients.
The way Trump is exercising ‘diplomacy’ particularly on aid, I should think there will be plenty countries willing to take Chinas generous future offers of cash/aid for bases….
Inefficiencies aside, I agree with Freddie that Foreign Aid is an important soft power tool that we shouldn’t be cutting; it’ll drive friendly nations towards China an others and realign areas that are currently reliable support.
Personally, there are a number of tax options that I’d have looked at first. People may complain, but actually our corporations tax is lower than Europe and the US, and there are other “upper band” changes that could be made that would also increase our tax income without impacting the middle and lower class. Everyone waxes lyrical about how capital is more mobile these days, and they may not be wrong. But bringing our taxes on rough parity with other major players like the US isn’t going to cause a mass exodus. But even the Labour government seem hesitant about what should be a really easily messaged change.
I entirely agree. Capital gains also need to be taxed at the same rate as income, it’s only fair, and council tax needs to be re-banded too. After all, raiding the foreign aid budget to pay for defence is something we can only do once!
Indeed, there are a lot of ways that the tax system can be made fairer without negatively impacting those with less- and without driving away capital. It’s just a very controversial thing to do, because the rich don’t like it and they can influence the media to make it sound like an awful idea.
Labour needs to get aggressive and on the front foot with their messaging on the subject and make it happen. But they won’t.
Well actually if you want to encourage investment then it makes sense to have Cap gains tax slightly lower than income as an incentive.
“but actually our corporations tax is lower than Europe and the US”
UK Corporation tax is 25%, US corporation tax is 21% on domestic companies and 30% on foreign companies. Germany “Many municipalities offer combined corporate tax rates below 25 percent. The German corporate tax average is around 29.9 percent.”, France corporation tax rate is 25%.
“Corporate Tax Rate in European Union averaged 25.61”
Did Trump give a 3% tax discount to firms that manufacture in the US? If so, the UK should copy that & give UK manufacturing firms a 3% discount on their corporation tax.
I wish we could do that, the only problem i foresee though is our energy costs for industry are triple that of the USA. Our biggest problem is Net zero it is absolutely crippling our economy, we are figuratively speaking, trying to tread water with both hands tied behind our back. If we just came to our senses and got rid of Net zero our economy could be booming.
Back in the 1990s, the civil service did a deep dive into what needed to be done re climate change. They concluded that if co2 could be cut by 55% of 1990 levels worldwide, then all would be fine. So if the UK adopted a 60% cut we would be setting a standard. They researched that with improving efficiency standards, this could be done without shutting UK industry or pensioners freezing. Trouble is Blair went off to the EU & agreed an 80% cut. That had never been studied or costed. Worse, May distracted her Brexit debacle by dreaming up net zero. I am all for cutting pollution, but a 60% cut makes more sense to me than net zero. Perhaps we need a referendum?
Blair never agreed an 80% cut that was Cameron
A very simplistic point, but if you gave the defence budget to people with knowledge of what’s required, could you do better.
It’s amazing to me on a basic level how little we get for one of the biggest defence budgets in the world.
Nobody knows the future so nobody knows what’s required. All we can do is ensure we have a sufficient number of flexible assets to be able to change the profile of what we can do at short notice. We can do better, always, but that is in no way a substitute for a budget increase.
Billy, the Defence budget does get split down into the various areas, managed by people who are SMEs.
The reason we do not seemingly get much bang for the buck in conventional forces is complex – our nuclear enterprise, which many countries don’t have is about 30% of the budget (I stand to be corrected!). Then we have multiple overseas bases to run (including but not limited to the Falklands) which many countries don’t have. Our personnel are paid more than conscripts. There is certainly too much wasted in flawed procurement, but are we any worse than other countries? (Probably!). We may also spend more than most on Overseas Training Exercises.
True. What the Ukrainians have accomplished in terms of battlefield innovation (and with some input from the UK (e.g. FrankenSAM with AIM-132)) for what is a tiny r&d cost should inform decisions made under these budget increases. There’s still no substitute for high-end tech like high altitude ballistic missile defence but it’s still remarkable what can be accomplished under the mother of necessity.
I wonder if we can expect and matching increase announcement for the USA. Under current legally mandated budgets cuts agreed by congress US defence spending will fall to 2.7% of GDP by the early 2030’s
That’s before the current 8% savings that Hegseth is looking at for next year.
Any % cuts to the US budget will be at least partially offset by their strongly growing economy. The same cannot be said for the UK, or Europe more generally.
Everything Trump says, and what he often gets his team to say, is an initial bargaining position. He knows he will end up settling nowhere near that initial position, but in ruffling so many feathers he breaks stalemates and forces concessions. He never truly expected us to reach 5%, and he knows he’ll not be able to half the US defence (or even defence nuclear) budgets. But the alarm bells that start ringing as a result of his statements get people moving and bring momentum to negotiations.
The US economy is not growing strongly. They are projected to grow at 2% this year (UK is 1.5%) but they are borrowing 6% of GDP to do that. If the UK borrowed 6% of GDP this year and spent it we would grow the economy by 3.5%.
America is just as fucked as everyone else they just have a bigger credit card. At no point in life or the history of nations has it been a good idea to fund current spending through borrowing (see South America for details)
Cheers Jim. You may be slightly optimistic that we’d see 3.5% growth off a 6% deficit but I don’t know enough to be categorical on the matter 🙂 BUT I think you’re dead right on the underlying point about America’s shaky foundations.
Americans happily troll Europeans as ‘Europoors’ due to our stagnating economies but the American looks to be nothing more than a debit fuelled bubble, which only they can get away with because of the dollar status. What’s more, a lot of their recent ‘growth’ has been through a massive increase in corporate profit taking at the expense of ‘middle America’. Food, housing, healthcare, transport etc. are all increasing in cost (which is counted as increased economic activity) but there’s no real corresponding improvement in benefit to American consumers.
And if we think this is bad, wait until Trump’s Oligarchy bins the few consumer protections that currently exist. Their whole domestic agenda is as mad as their foreign one – it’s turning the ‘Land of the Free’ into a tribute act of Putin’s Russia.
All this is painfully obvious to those of us who are interested in military matters when we look at the dysfunctional American defence industry, which has very few companies and so very little competition. While these firms do produce some fabulous bits of kit (Apache, B21!), they also a lot of meh, but regardless of the quality or capability you can guarantee that all of it will be available at eye watering prices.
In many respects Trump is the symptom of a much deeper malaise in the country. If you think back to the year 2000, the USA sat as the undisputed hegemon in the world, in many senses a beacon to its allies. However, in just 25 short years, they’ve managed to throw most of it anyway and in the process become a parody of themselves. It’s a real shame.
So, at risk at coming across as a broken record in the days and weeks to come: I fear that we desperately need to remove any dependencies we have on MAGA American, and the biggest risk of all must be the Trident missiles.
Finally, apologies for the length of my post, I am sure you all have better things to do than read yet another rant from (yet another) anonymous blogger. Ta.
I agree, my first run to America was in 2001 right at the end of its great period. It’s a very different place now.
Since USA continues to field Trident D5 and UK AWE is responsible for UK warheads, I doubt there is any significant risk to UK independent Nuclear deterrent.
DoD knows that 2 independent deterrents within NATO (FR,UK) complicates the aggressors decisions, so is in the US national interest.
Although for some reason the Japanese seem pretty immune to that rule somehow..still spending 300 pounds per drain hole cover when their national debt is 265% or GDP.
The.man talks percentages.
It is his talk.
The US economy will not grow. It’ll shrink under Trump.
He’s doing enormous damage to his country, like he did in 2016-20. His voters are just too stupid to see it. They refuse to see it.
Am absolutely convinced that the expansion of UK defence budget is a necessary measure to ensure the defense of the realm, however, considerably less certain that it will alone be sufficient. Any measurable increase in UK defence expenditures will certainly be positively received initially by NATO (even The Donald), but the effects of the increase will be tempered by the necessary distribution of funds to address multiple long-term and emergent issues. Equally important, The Donald has a longer-term agenda, to wit: The real decision point re defence funding for both the UK and the rest of ENATO may well occur during or after the NATO Summit in June. The US may demand both large and rapid increases in defence spending across the alliance, and seize upon rejection by members as a pretext to deemphasize US involvement/withdrawal from NATO integrated command structure (ala the French under de Gaulle). How much of an increase, and as importantly, how quickly? An uninformed, Wild-Ass-Guess (WAG): ~3.5% of GDP by end of CY28 (~ matching current US expenditure rate by the end of The Donald’s current term in office). Some ENATO countries already exceed or match the goal (aka demand) e. g., the Baltics and Poland, and Norway has a $1+Tn sovereign wealth fund to draw upon, however, how many other ENATO countries will realistically be able to meet that requirement, that expeditiously? The fear–not many. An unfortunate, but probably truthful statement.
Unable to predict events beyond that point. 🤔
Jim, I agree. It is ironic that we are increasing defence spending (finally) whilst the US is just about to reduce defence spending.
The realisation that defence needs a boost has taken three years to sink in even though most commentators have been talking into deaf ears for years. Now, the mood is set to get a grip and make the necessary upgrades, especially to the Army. Air defence of the UK mainland and artillery appear to be priorities, yet the lamentable state of the RA is not news. By 2030 the UK could see, additional Typhoon, F35, Wedgtail, remote airframes and an increase of two Type 26 and Type 31, replacement of the Bulwark Class and an increase in CH3 (from existing CH2) and follow-on orders for Boxer and Ajax. Archer could be retained indefinitely to work with a sizable Boxer-mounted 155mm gun fleet. What must be avoided is any weakening of the government’s resolve in this matter.
Air defence is probably the best, quickest and easiest thing we could spend the money on. Wharton is about to run out of work and desperately needs new Typhoon orders. We already have the production line for E7 and two spare radars good to go. MBDA can quickly add to the Sky Sabre fleet. The Germans have already opened the way for arrow 3 with a nice easy program for us to tap on to. Aster 30 block NT is about to enter service and we have a large stock pile of Aster 30 we can share with the Navy. Italy has just launched Kronos Grand radar which will work with Aster and CAMM series of missiles. Two years at £6 billion spending could get all of this bought and we can seal off the UK sky’s and any real threat to our island. Once we are safe at home we can expand out to other allies.
Maurice, air defence of the UK mainland is primarily provided by RAF fast jets, and possibly by parking a spare T45 in the Thames with radars spinning.
None of the armys 4 x UK based SkySabre launchers (yes, only 4) is earmarked for UK mainland GBAD defence – they are for the protection of deployed army units.
[We have a 5th launcher in the Falklands and a 6th one in Poland/Estonia. I wonder how many Rapier Fire Units we had ‘back in the day!]
I was amused by your comment about ‘an increase’ in Challenger 3. We bought 386 Chally 2 gun tanks post-Cold War in the late 90s, of which 213 are on the active list, and will soon end up with 148 Chally 3 replacements!
Do we really only have 6 launchers? I thought it was 3 per battery, so at least 18. If it is just 6 launchers then blimey that is thin.
“Reportedly a Sky Sabre battery consists of one SAMOC, one GAMB, and four to six iLaunchers.“
I’d include the link but it’d never get seen due to “awaiting moderation” purgatory…
Spock, so the army has six SkySabre batteries then? OK. Not quite so bad then.
We don’t have a spare type 45, and using a ship in a homeland air defence role is an almighty waste of scarce resources.
New, I was being a little flippant. Use of the word ‘spare’ meaning a ship that was not on task on the high seas. If an enemy was about to fire ballistic, hypersonic or cruise missiles at our capital, you may see a single Type 45 ordered to the Thames, don’t you think.
Launchers was a big topic of debate here the other day.
The FG in Poland had at least 2, not 1, as there is a photo showing this.
There are 8 Fire Groups.
Confusion remains regards what is a system or a launcher. A system should have 2 or 3 of the latter.
If there are only 6 launchers as some say, we are more screwed than I thought.
Which army General or minister thought that acceptable with such a billon pound purchase?
Army stopped the procurement as they ‘wanted something better’ with longer range.
Old story……perfection getting in the way of good.
Unfortunately someone didn’t get the memo about it being modular and upgradable. Nor that CAMM is useful with CAMM-MR.
Given how much better CAMM is than Rapier could ever have hoped to be…..
Everything I can find in Hansard says a system and a battery are the same thing and there are 6. A launcher refers to a single truck carrying missiles and there are 24. Each battery/system contains one radar, one command vehcile and 4 launchers.
Thanks Daniele. You can see why I am confused about how many AD launchers the army has. So little clarity and detail in MoD press releases and media reports. It was a lot simpler in Rapier days as we just talked about Fire Units.
To answer your question, there were some 216 Rapier launchers in the front line in late 80s. 3 Artillery Regts with 48 each, and 9 RAF Regt Squadrons with 8 each. Puts the current strength of just 1 Regiment into context, even if CAMM is clearly much superior unit for unit. Of course there were still Bloodhound units in service then as well.
It’s not 4 launchers. It’s 4 batteries. 16 launchers.
Not that that’s great, still better than 4.
Honestly, I am a lot less worried about air defence of the UK; the threat is relatively low, and we already have airframes that can do the job (T1 Typhoon with AMRAAM and Meteor) backed up by early warning supplied by our allies across the Baltics and Nordics and our own ground-and-air-based radar. More would always be nice, but I don’t see it as the priority of many here- so accept that necessarily makes me the minority!
Based upon likely risk, our forces forward deployed are far more likely to be on the receiving end of violence- we don’t fight on home turf as it were. So that’s where I’d be focussing my air defence spending; mobile systems that create a layered bubble that allows our ground forces to operate effectively where they’re deployed in Lithuania and elsewhere. To me, that means boosting our Sky Sabre systems buy, expanding it with CAMM-ER and/or -MR, and looking into whether SAMP/T provides something extra that the longer-ranged versions of CAMM don’t.
Then, as you say, look at our indirect fires as a whole, whether that’s traditional tube artillery, GMLRS, SRBMs (PrSM is one, technically, I believe), various different riffs on GL-Brimstone and Spear 3, 120 mm mortars; there are loads of items that need a coherent plan. Not saying there isn’t one, just I haven’t seen one!
I fear you are a little complacent on the UK air defence side. The main threat would be from the north. Cruise missiles launched from Bombers (Kh-101) or Subs (Kalibr) from the northern Norwegian sea. At low level there is then a huge gap in the fixed radar coverage between Iceland and Norway, and then also gaps in low-level coverage between the 7 UK radars. Since we have no AEW aircraft at present, getting Typhoons into position in time to intercept would be hugely challenging.
And by the way, Typhoon Tr 1 is due to be taken out of service this year and scrapped for spares.
I should probably have clarified, I realise that I wasn’t clear:
In terms of GBAD specifically, I think we should be focussing on provision for our forward deployable forces- rather than mainland UK. Regardless of defence budget increase, we will still have more needs than cash and so prioritisation will still be needed.
That said, keeping the T1s in service, or scrapping them and getting some more T3/T4 airframes with some of that budget increase is something I’d be in favour of. Whether the T1s stay in service and free up some T2/3 for forward deployment, or we just get more T3/4 airframes, we’re improving both our offensive and defensive posture.
I would agree that the GIUK gap, is the most likely point of launch for an air attack against the UK, as it was during the cold war too. But I think we’re underestimating the allied surveillance of this area, as well as the assets we can (or soon will able to) put up to monitor it. The E7 are admittedly late, but they are paid for and coming (an asset that I’d be keen to return to original number of 5) and again serve a dual role in defence of mainland UK and support of forward deployed and allied forces. I wonder whether Protector could be fitted out with a more limited AEW set that doesn’t include the airborne control element of the E-7 that a drone would be less effective at, making it an AEW-lite option rather than the full-fat AWACS capability of the E-7. Both of these could (and I think intended to be) deployed forward to Norway, Greenland and Iceland to further push our advance warning out.
The core of my point was really that I think GBAD (i.e. a chain of new missile interceptor sites around the UK) should be well down our list of priorities.
It makes my teeth itch how much this labour government has become so 2 faced and slimy to Donald Trump. Before they got elected they couldn’t slate him enough. Now they can’t suck up to him enough. Even the slimiest one of all, London mayor Sadiq Khan has said he’ll roll out the red carpet for him if he came to London. More slime than a snails arse.
This is how statesmen act, you put aside your political squabbles for the good of the national and respect foreign leaders as non political actors.
Also it helps to keep the sociopath with the authority to order nuclear strikes happy. However if we don’t use any of that increase of spending to order American weapons he will soon turn against us.
Agree, we need to placate Trump to buy time, this is the UK’s most important global role now. No other country can do this.
At the same time we can marshal Europe under the guise of helping the US pivot until we don’t need them. 5 years and we are done.
The Tangerine King likes big announcements….give him one….
– 25 more F35B
– 3 more P-8
– Mk41 for T31
– Pile of Tomahawk so we can put a row in each Mk41 VLS on T26+T31 with reloads.
Sounds good and is deliverable as well as being money well spent.
I agree, I would go further, lots of big announcements for 50 F35’s worth $60 billion to the USA then stick half them in production lots after 2029 that can be cancelled as soon as he is gone.
I would also offer him a Viscount Hereditary Title (he is British by birth so can have one) as all other Republican presidents only got honorary Knight hoods but The Donald can get not only a lordship but one that passes on. I would tell him he needs to back track on the 51st state stuff with Canada though or Charles can’t give him one.
I would also offer to buy his Scottish golf course of him for a couple of billion for us to use as a national wind farm research centre.
Basically anything to keep him busy and distracted until 2029.
Agree in the end Tomahawks are a very very good deterrent we need a greater stock of cruise missiles/ need to bring our stocks back up to 1000..so 100 ship based tomahawks would do the trick…
We need 78 F35Bs and we build 15% so I would go with 30…we know the MK41s are needed for the T31 so a no brainier really…also give him DG as a present and see if we can get a zero tariff trade deal out of it.
We paid the heavy price of European freedom from dictatorship last century and thought that Democracy was a consensus of Shared Values.
It seems that Education is key to making good decisions within a Democracy and that the poorly educated can be mislead so are vulnerable to dictatorship.
The Republican party has a record against Education so deliberately works against public education for their advantage. The Democrat party didn’t prevent that. USA is unreliable.
We must take the initiative in European NATO command to send the American staff home and lead for the interests of all European people. There can be no influence for a country that will not contribute, especially no veto for USA.
They said they won’t support Article 5 so European NATO countries will take that duty and decide what security guarantees will be given to Ukraine.
We already started with Joint Expeditionary Force and Advanced Forward Presence.
🇸🇪🇳🇴🇩🇰🇫🇮🇪🇪🇱🇻🇱🇹🇳🇱🇬🇧🇩🇪
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦
Slava Heroyam 🇺🇦
#WeAreNATO #vpdfo
Sod buying US weapons. Get as many F-35s as we need and then that’s it.
Spend as much as we can on UK-produced weapons, components and munitions.
What we can’t get in the UK, get from Europe first.
Get from the US if we can’t produce domestically or from Europe.
Where do our trident missiles come from? We need them more than ever now we can’t count on the US deterring a nuclear strike on Europe. You don’t have to like it but as things stand the foundation of uk and European defence is totally reliant on us not falling out with the US.
Agreed. We must effect a Plan B (buying French missiles?) ASAP.
Removing this dependency is the number 1 thing we can do for ourselves and our European allies now – join the French is putting a completely reliable nuclear umbrella over them. We should also consider adding an air launched nuclear missiles to match the French system.
Only we and the French can contribute this capability to our mutual defence. Everything else is secondary.
(It’s bloody annoying to admit that the French were right to aim for self-sufficiency in defence :)).
Cheers.
Didn’t the new German chancellor say something about investing money in the UK’s and the French nuclear deterrent??
That would be great if it ever happens. Germany, Austria and the like are very rich countries but they benefit from NATO without contributing or paying their share.
If the EU NATO countries were paying for our nuclear deterrent and that of France we could feasibly increase numbers to 5 or 6 SSBNs each so between UK and France 3 subs at sea undertaking CASD at all times.
I’d like this to gain traction. Also EU and UK should reinvest in theatre/ tactical nukes as a response to Russia fielding intermittent range ballistic missiles.
They come from a joint stockpile in Georgia. Our SSBN’s travel there and get filled up with missiles then go to Scotland to have the warheads fitted. When the missiles or the SSBN’s have to be maintained the boats take them back to Georgia.
i agree we need a plan B and C. We should quietly begin development of an SLBM based on the French M51 and possibly paid for in part by German contributions.
Plan C is we stick a nuclear warhead inside a storm shadow missile. We don’t need to follow through on this unless the US try to cut us off from Trident II missiles but we could develop the idea and produce many of the parts so this could be rapidly rolled out in a year. It would give us and any operator of Tornado, Rafale, Typhoon or Gripin the ability to potentially carry a tactical nuclear weapon with zero integration requirements beyond what stom shadow already has.
It’s not pretty but it would prevent the US from disarming us and NATO long enough to get the new SLBM’s finished and a B61 replacement.
Storm Shadow requires ITAR part replacement first, as Ukraine discovered when UK gave permission but Biden did not..
ITAR won’t be a problem if the USA cuts us off from trident.
Worth looking back at the risks and criticisms of the Multilateral Force (MLF) concept for combined nuclear security from the late 50’s. As ever we see the world changing very quickly.
Remiss of me not to mention one of the greatest Amercan satirical voices of the 20th C, Tom Lehrer… just to lighten the conversation:
Sleep, baby, sleep, in peace may you slumber
No danger lurks, your sleep to encumber
We’ve got the missiles, peace to determine
And one of the fingers on the button will be German
Why shouldn’t they have nuclear warheads?
England says no, but they all are soreheads
I say a bygone should be a bygone
Let’s make peace the way we did in
Stanleyville and Saigon
Once all the Germans were warlike and mean
But that couldn’t happen again
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they’ve hardly bothered us since then…
So, sleep well, my darling, the sandman can linger
We know our buddies won’t give us the finger
Heil, hail, the Wehrmacht
I mean the Bundeswehr
Hail to our loyal ally
MLF, will scare Brezhnev
I hope he is half as scared as I
Just send them all they’ve got, John Wayne and Randolph Scott.
We used to service Polaris in the UK. Time to go back to that with Trident?
Yes
Yes I think a unilateral ability to service trident is fundamentally needed and we then need to do a joint effort with France on a new nuclear tipped ballistic missile ready for the 2040s and also throw in on their new air launched nuclear tipped cruise missile project..
Since USA continues to field Trident D5 and UK AWE is responsible for UK warheads, I doubt there is any significant risk to UK independent Nuclear deterrent.
DoD knows that 2 independent deterrents within NATO (FR,UK) complicates the aggressors decisions, so is in the US national interest.
There’s a formal collaboration agreement on US UK Trident supply and sustainment.
Saying that, President musk did try to fire the US equivalent of AWE not realising what they did to keep America great!
So tech bro incompetence could still be a temporary issue…
Four weeks ago I would have agreed with you, but now we are one angry tweet away from British Submarines nit being able to load up with missiles. The Us might even offer up our weapons as part of strategic reduction talks with the Russians. Treaties are now worthless with the US. Even the US constitution is now worthless.
The DoD is now a Fox News host who will do what ever Trump tells him. There are no grown ups left, there are no guard rails and no one in America can do anything about it.
It’s down to us to flatter, cajole and bribe him directly if that’s what it takes to hold the free world together.
I’d send all 4 subs over to the USA to load up on missiles and then bring them back to the UK. Are we stating we can’t maintain the missiles as a develop nation?
Surely not.
This reply is actually to Mr Bell above.
We only have three subs in service at a time. Therefore we only bought 57 missiles and have used four in tests.
Otherwise I agree.
If Tangerine man decides to opt out of NATO and/or not recognising Article 5 we could work toward establising ENATO, with a joint UK/FR nuclear strike capability completely under UK/FR control – but perhaps committed only to ENATO. As it will only be protecting our Euro allies they must pay into supplying and maintaining it. Ergo – everyone gets nuclear protection at a cut rate price.
Of course, it’s all much more complicated than that – but you get my drift…
Yeas, but you know they’re holding their noses as they do it. It’s what being in government means: tough choices and unpleasant compromises..
It grates that we have this because of Trump.
It was on the cards but I think Trump has been part of the pressure.
For me it is good that it gives the guys at the MOD to plan procurement with a degree of certainty instead of the hand to mouth existence that causes huge problems and ultimately is one of the main drivers for waste and cost over runs.
So the Strategic Defence Review (what) has an essential follow on action: Defence Industrial Strategy (how) to give investors the long term certainty to commit on.
Lord Robertson who leads the SDR must ensure that the Defence Select Committee commits government to urgently provide the Defence Industrial Strategy.
General recommendations in SDR will not do.
That Defence Industrial Strategy must be aligned with European NATO countries for a Buy European first approach and to collaborate on scale which drives down cost.
Traditional Purchasing competition ideas don’t fly when individual nations just think of their own interests. We need all European thinking and value for money by scale…
I was going to post the same thing, even down to using the word “grates”.
Silver linings and clouds and all, but I still can’t bring myself to be completely happy about it…!
Nothing tells you more that we are doing the right thing when the Russians get very hot under the collar about it.
Oh dear, how sad , never mind with Didums on top Vlad!!
News today about the government being tight lipped about whether the payments for the Chagos Islands will come out of the “new” defence budget.? Also questions about whether the “increase” includes an increase in aid to the Ukraine.? Healey meanwhile has confirmed that the “increase” is more like £5.5 billion, NOT the £13.4 promised. So we have another set of dis-information from Starmer using the Reeves school of arithmetic. With inflation at 3% and possibly going to 4% we have no increase at all, especially if the economy flatlines.
We were debating what that extra 0.1% of GDP on security was all about. Chagos is as good an explanation as any.
Quite why we have to pay for this handover is way beyond my understanding, quite why we are doing this evades me too.
It delivers a long term agreement so avoids the distraction of local disent.
Chagos deal is dead, the PM that negotiated it is off to jail, the USA not longer wants it and Labour is spitting its dummy out at the cost.
I have more chance of banging Sydney Sweeney than Mauritius has of getting those islands back before 2030.
They were never Mauritius’s in the first place ….. who the feck is Sydney Sweeney ? Is he one of those Love Island blokes ? Do you watch that Shite ?
Sydney Sweeney’s a lovely girl, good luck to you! As for the Chagos issue, I’ve said before on here that we are best shot of them. Unlike the Falklands, Gib etc there are no British people living there to defend, and we lack the military assets to take advantage of them ourselves. Realistically, that’s not going to change: even if we had a vastly larger defence budget, we can’t justify a major base in the middle of the Indian Ocean. But we take a political hit for owning them from other countries, and it undermines our criticism of Russian colonialism in the eyes of the ‘Global South’. We should offload them and let the Americans take the political hit for their occupation, and make their own accommodation with Mauritius or anybody else. Save our diplomatic powder for future disputes over the places that actually matter to us. But we certainly should not be shelling out a single penny for the privilege of letting them go.
Agree just give them to the US for something nice we need.. like a free trade deal
Sydney Sweeney is an American actress, sexiest women in the world. I may start watching love island if it keeps me away from the news 😀
How old are you Jim.. if your the same age as most of us commentators on this website.. as a healthcare professional I must advise you to take a cold shower for the sake of your ticker..
Early 40’s 🕺🏻
You just might survive the experience then..🤣😂 but don’t wait long it starts going down hill quick.
Sydney Sweeney approves this post.
No the amount is 13.5 billion.. what the debate about is how much it would have gone up without the increase.. the budget is getting the 13.5 billion uplift.. but the government have been increasing the amount every year in line with inflation.. so what people are saying is but you would have given 6 of that anyway… it is frankly all a bit ridiculous as the increase is 13.5 billion and the budget is going to be 79.7 billion as for the chagos bit starmer was clear he said the increase was to build up our defence not the chagos islands.. infact he got a bit irritated he also pointed out the 9 billion would have been spread over 100 years….
Where is your evidence the US does not want Chagos? There are plenty of senior US officers retired and serving who have said it’s a vital base in their chain across the Indian Ocean!
Exactly and thanks because It seems I’m not alone now in thinking that these Islands are strategically important to the US and UK given their location.
The US still wants the islands, my point was the US no longer wants the previous deal. It was the Biden administration at the behest of India that wanted us to come to a deal with Mauritius.
There is a summary of some tax options within this exact context on Youtube.
If one was to search for Richard J Murphy (he is professor of accounting practice at Sheffield) or the video “Lord Keynes told us in 1941 how to pay for defence We should follow his advice”. He effectively steps through the major themes of Maynard Keynes advice to the chancellor in ’41 (it is a hard read but available online if you are a proper sadist). Even does some basic maths to make it relevant to today’s figures. It is 11 mins well spent if you wish to put some figures to potential tax changes.
Considering the Labour party is inherently ‘Keynist’ in basic economic theory. There are some obvious shortcomings, the global mobility of the wealthy and the ability to move money around quickly are not considered, but there is some clear food for thought.
Watched that today, and I totally agree with the general thrust. Some of the suggestions are too much for me, but as he himself says, there’s no need to implement them all. I mentioned a few days ago that I wanted more taxes on unearned income to pay for Defence, and here’s a professor, an economist and and accountant who knows how to put the flesh on the bone. I also watched his video on taxing wealth and he details raising over £100bn without attacking the poor. Quite astonishing! Just three of his suggestions could raise enough to pay for 3.5%GDP in the defence budget. I wouldn’t want to go in too heavy, but with modifications, getting to £20bn and 3% would be relatively easy (assuming his numbers are right). For example reintroducing “an investment income surcharge”, which he describes as like NI for unearned income could bring in £18bn all by itself. Apparently Thatcher abolished that one. I also quite liked adding VAT to the kinds of financial services used by rich people to get help on how to avoid tax: £8.7bn. I’d stop there and put allowances on the lowest part of the investment income surcharge to ensure that poorer people living off investments didn’t get hit at all. Nevertheless, £20bn raised and 3% paid for. Of course the devil is always in the details, and watching a couple of YouTube vids doesn’t give me any expertise. Nevertheless I really want to hear this guy debating his ideas with other experts.
It would be very odd to re introduce a surcharge on investment income whilst encouraging saving through wholly untaxed schemes like ISAs. Taxing wealth directly is fraught with problems: income tax was re introduced as an indirect means of taxing wealth. The mobility of modern capital makes closing tax havens difficult. If UK shut down the activities in its remaining colonies, we would still have to deal with territories parliament doesn’t control, including the Channel Islands and Isle of Man.
There are no easy fixes for a country with low growth and already suffering high peacetime taxation. A critical approach to the ballooning welfare budget might be the only way to free up significant funding without further depressing economic activity.
Maybe they should give them back to the Chagosians, who have been sidelined in all this. Perhaps Donald could develop them into a tax haven paradise instead of Gaza, or as well as. Joking aside, loosing Diego Garcia would create a vacuum in the Indian Ocean, which would very soon be filled by the PLA Navy. This hub is too important.
Then let the Americans fill that vacuum. We have bigger fish to try elsewhere.
That’s the point! The Americans are filling that vacuum with Diego Garcia,it’s a strategic base for their navy and airforce!
There was a piece on Forbes news last night about it and they are NOT happy bunnies at all and the senator trying to explain the ‘deal’ was dumbfounded over the stupidity of it!
Ukraine operated a jumble sale of used kit , in a warzone. The British armed forces seem to outsource huge hundred million contracts to support kit. Would it be cheaper to maintain in house.
Wonder how many Bradley OSD and M109s the US has in store? Borrow a load of these and many of the currently embarrassments in the army would be sorted short term.
The actual solution though will be to try and get an Ares IFV operational by 2035 with a host of mechanical issues.
That should be the easy bit. Ascod 2 is a good bit of kit. The Ajax program has strengthened the suspension to take more weight. Developing an Ascod 3 with better gun and/or armor should be a doodle.
If we can get the base to take normal Boxer modules? I was dismayed to read hear that the planned tracked Boxer requires different modules.
Or they could just modernise warrior as planned for for around 4 million per vehicle
warrior would again require a contractor to come up with a design. When canceled I assume the production facilities were scrapped.
I would imagine all the work is still in place.
After all the 40mm cannons are and I think they build a fair number of turrets as well.
I would rather have the Boxer with the 105mm Cockerill turret & also the Skyranger Boxer with a 30mm gun+Starstreak.
Hopefully this means Tempest is rock solid for funds now.
It should create a lot of good jobs if nothing else.
I know that Starmer is by profession a HR Lawyer, but why is he so desperate to comply with a non-binding and unenforceable ruling by a Chinese judge that the Chagos Islands belong to the 1000 miles distant Mauritius (population 1 million)? Why is he so desperate to override the wishes of the islanders who want to remain British, and instead will forcibly deport them to Pakistan and Rumania so that the Mauritius (and apparently China) can get vacant possession? Why is he so desperate that he is willing to risk the security of the UK and the USA by compromising the vital Diego Garcia base? Why is he so desperate to commit the UK paying an eventual total of £56 billion to Mauritius’ in what their PM is calling “reparations”. Also, the same Chinese judge has since ruled that the UK owes India $7 Trillion (just over twice our entire GDP!) in “colonial reparations”, and unsurprisingly other countries are queuing up at his court to get their piece of the pie. Will Starmer accept those rulings and put the UK in hock for the effectively for ever by agreeing to pay say $100bn a year in reparations for events that occurred hundreds of years ago? Perhaps we should take Italy to court for compensation for its four century long occupation and exploitation of Britain – allowing for 1600 years of interest, agreeing to pay just $1 Quadrillion would be a real bargain for Italy.
You’ll have to ask the previous Government as they started the negotiations, with no concern for the islanders. The handover was the end game, details will have differed but it wasn’t Labours show, Lammy going for the quick “win”?
Lots of new posts on the web about the Chagos deal. Mauritius “sources” are apparently saying that Trump will veto the handover when he meets Starmer on Thursday, and that the UK’s agreed “front loaded” first payment of £9 billion will no longer land in their bank account in the next few weeks. Presumably the $billions they expected to gain from then leasing on the islands to China are also now unlikely. Whether Trump demands that the UK gives the sovereignty of the islands to the USA is now the big question. It may well make sense for the UK to agree to that, at least we won’t be committed to paying the Mauritius for no obvious reason a total of £54 billion over the next half century – about the annual UK defence budget.
Apparently latest news coming out in the Times tomorrow is that Us officials have warned the UK not to rely on buying US equipment any more, they seem to think we have been buying US equipment too cheaply and they want to Jack prices up.
The clown show continues.
Long term, that could be a good thing for UK defence industry. My only concern is if Trump then decides to cut away at projects going to BAE US…
Time to “leak” Chevaline M51 and Tempest VTOL…
Same old stuff, Starmer just needs to renounce an existing buy or one that was already planned in SDSR and Trump will sell it as an amazing new deal and that the US isn’t getting “ripped off” anymore.
Meanwhile re-industrialize and buy British.
Wow just wow.
It is sad and indicative of the UKs (low) position in the world that endorsement by the orange Oompa Loompa government of imbeciles is coveted.
.
.
Rant over.
.
.
2.5% is insufficient and the schedule to slow. If the UK were serious about not learning russian and/or chinese and/or burying their present force structure, they would do 5% in 2025, full-stop.
I would dis agree about the UK’s low place in the world, indeed we have all and Europe and the USA trying to gain our favour. We are the lynch pin holding the western world together. Trump has now attacked every country in the world except us. There is a reason for that and every British government since the Trent affair has tipped toed around US governments much the same as every US government has done so around British governments.
How many countries on the other side of the world were offered admission to CPTPP.
Germany now wants to pay us for coverage of our nuclear weapons.
These are not things that countries with low positions in the world get.