The update of Britain’s defence and security policy, the Integrated Review refresh, was published earlier today.

The document warns of China’s deepening partnership with Russia and Moscow’s increasing cooperation with Iran.

Foreign Secretary James Cleverly updated the House of Commons on the 2023 Integrated Review Refresh today, his remarks are below.

“Today I can set out a number of both immediate and longer term measures that will help us deliver on our priorities, and they are as follows:

  • We will increase defence spending by a further £5 billion over the next 2 years. This will bring us to around 2.25% of national income and represents significant progress in meeting our long-term minimum defence spending target of 2.5% of GDP.
  • Today’s announcement of £5 billion comes on top of the commitments made by the Chancellor in his Autumn Budget Statement, on top of the £560 million of new investments last year and on top of the record £20 billion uplift announced in 2020.
  • Later today the Prime Minister will announce, alongside President Biden and Prime Minister Albanese, the next steps for AUKUS, including how we will deliver multibillion pound conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine capabilities to the Royal Australian Navy, while setting the highest non-proliferation standards.
  • We will provide an additional £20 million uplift to the BBC World Service over the next 2 years, protecting all 42 World Service language services.
  • We have also established a new directorate in the FCDO, incorporating the Government Information Cell, to increase our capacity to assess and counter hostile information manipulation by actors, including Russia and China, where it affects UK interests overseas.
  • We will double funding for Chinese expertise and capacities in government so that we have more Mandarin speakers and China experts.
  • And we will create a new £1 billion Integrated Security Fund to deliver critical programmes at home and overseas on key priorities like economic and cyber security, counter terrorism and on the battle to uphold and defend human rights.

We will establish a new National Protective Services Authority. Located within MI5, it will provide UK businesses and other organisations with immediate access to expert security advice. And a new £50 million Economic Deterrence Initiative will strengthen sanctions enforcement and impact and will also give us new tools to respond to hostile acts.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

128 COMMENTS

  1. I wonder if that even recovers what has been lost in real terms from inflation and the strong US dollar

    • The last equipment plan was based on an assumed rate of $1.26 to £1. The NAO observed that this was already optimistic. There may be some hedging in place but the combination of forex deterioration and inflation is sure to squeeze budgets even more.

    • Would need £5 billion per annum just to match basic inflation. This gives less than £2 billion in cash for this year.

    • AUKAS funding should, for UK, largely be a credit card arrangement as ultimately outlays will be recovered from billings to Australia and I would expect much of the engineering and manufacturing capacity outlays to be funded by business who will recover outlays from sales / profits.

    • Pursuing a strategy of 3% (amongst other things) spooked the markets. Caution will be required in the short term. The positive thing is that the military is seen as a priority and not something to be actively cut.

      • I’m not sure it was the 3% that spooked the markets!

        I think it was more the detachment from reality.

        Rather than if policy A delivers £X then we will go to the next step.

        TBH they were actually tight but the presentation and arrogance of their presentation was breathtaking. It would almost certainly have increase the tax take.

      • Not actively cut?
        No announcement on type 32, MRSS, C3 numbers, further batches of typhoon Vs bringing Tempest into service earlier/ accelerating the programme.
        Army still being cut to a single platoon of guys in a jeep? 72000 is far far too small a force.
        No further Poseidon MPAs when a further 3-4 desperately needed. Ditto Wedgetail. The USAF has selected the type as it’s AWACS replacement therefore unit price is going to fall once an order for 20+ aircraft comes through.
        I’d say the cuts are continuing despite Mad Vlad’s war and the Chinese threat.
        Await integrated defence review outcome but can’t see any significant changes being announced that reflect the pressing security threats the UK is facing.

        • We don’t have the money to spend. We are going into a recession. Just look at the Government revenue being sucked away. All that extra £B we are spending on gas/electricity at 5% VAT instead of spending it elsewhere at 20%. Or the extra % interest on mortgages etc also sucking at tax revenue. Then all the pubs/shops/small businesses going under reducing tax take and increasing social security. We don’t know yet how big users of energy, gas in particular, are reacting to the increases, British Steel’s coking plant is the first crack in the wall.

          I think your ‘desperately needed’ comment is sadly going to apply at a much more fundamental level than more P-8, like pensions.

  2. For those wanting a boost to the army etc, all is not lost. NATO may well move to a 2.5% of GDP target over the summer.

    Good news that there is investment in the few areas announced though.

    • Trouble is the investment is in the wrong areas. The spend was entirely political and pitched to the optics of the AUKUS conference.
      IR was refreshed solely because of the intense and devastating war in Europe. Very little of the £4.9bn is going to strengthen our forces facing a threat in Europe.

    • Exactly, people seem to be expecting ORBAT and procurement changes, which is not what this was about. They come later.

    • I wonder why it is so unlinked (in timeline) to the recent announcement of the extra £4.9bn and the Spring budget. We have heard how the £4.9bn is to be spent. I wonder what the Command Paper will say.

      • The £16.5 billion poubd uplift was swallowed up by the budget deficit. The MOD were running a £30 billion black hole.
        The additional £4.9 was to cover the costs of overun on projects.

        • Mark, The £4.9bn is not to cover costs of overruns on projects:

          £3bn from the extra spending would be earmarked to support the AUSUK pact, along with boosting industrial infrastructure and servicing UK submarines.

          The remaining £1.9bn will be used to replace weapons sent to Ukraine and improve the UK’s munitions infrastructure.

  4. Replacing armaments donated to ukraine does not strengthen us. It just restores the status quo.

    The biggest part of the money is earmarked for the UK Aus US pact, be under no illusions,
    that’s intended to secure sub sales to Oz bringing money in, rather than actually improving the gaping holes in the countries defences.

    Don’t be fooled by this, it’s just Sunak being Sunak thinking about money first second and third and banking on the fact the average uk sheep can’t see through it.

    Ps I thought it quite appropriate that my spell checker insisted on changing Sunak to snake, perhaps its got more insight than most of the UK public…

    • What’s wrong with bringing money in. It increase GDP which as we link a % of GDP to defence spend its an increase.

      Nothing wrong with keeping an eye on cash and ensuring things are funded. We saw what happened when unfunded spend was proposed the markets had a wobbly. Labour will be no different they’ve criticised the tories so much the dare not present an unfunded defence budget.

        • your wrong, short site is what causes most issues. selling subs to Oz makes a strong ally and generates GDP which in turn means more defence cash

      • Exactly this.

        At least BW is getting £££ increases and a PM talking about 2.5%. Even Doris wasn’t talking about structural increases when he was PM although he did throw £16Bn at the problem.

        Let’s hope NATO moves to 2.5%.

  5. The £4.9bn over two years is hypothecated. It’s all going on AUKUS, nuclear infrastructure and Ukraine (which last year came out of a separate budget).

    The amount going on the Army, the Surface Fleet, the Air Force, Space, Cyber and Digital, is zero! Following a year with double digit inflation that’s a real terms cut of over 10% in all these areas. Literally a decimation.

    With war in Europe, the rise of the military power of China, and countries all around the world rearming to meet the threat, our Prime Minister has chosen to decimate our armed services. I’m ashamed.

    • Its broken down £3bn for Nuclear-industrial and £1.9bn for Munitions restocking and financing increased production capacity, rest are small projects/not direct defence spending like £20m for BBC World Service, increased Chinese language training for MI6 and £100m for MI5 to expand its counter-cyber assistance to companies.

    • Question from an underinformed observer: Does the House of Commons or House of Lords have any capability to revisit this issue and associated funding, short of calling for a vote of no confidence in the government? It seemed as though even the shadow defence minister was arguing for greater expenditure? Really don’t have an adequate grasp of British politics. 🤔

      • The opposition can say what they like. They don’t have to take responsibility for a word that comes out of their mouths. Labour hasn’t committed to a big increase either. All depends on the state of the economy over the next few years. And big increases in defence spending doesn’t win votes at general elections. Unfortunately.

        • Indeed, comments on NHS sites re the Junior Dr’s strike have been made that £5BN found for MOD, why not NHS?

          And unless in state of war near our borders, its the NHS that most voters will see as a priority simply because it impacts on them in a more visible way

          • That’s the thing. Less and less of the general public have a direct association with the Armed Force’s. Respect and admiration is high for our services. But few know how many fast jets, warships or Army equipment we have unless genuinely interested. People just see the headline figures of 2nd most powerful in NATO, 5th largest defence budget in the world ect ect and persume everything is all good. And in a lot of areas of defence we are in a good position. But 30 years of defence spending decline is starting to show in many key area’s.

          • Memories are short for those doctors. An additional £6.4bn was found for the NHS in early September 2022 and an additional £3.3bn in mid-November.

          • According to the BMA website
            Pay scales for junior doctors in Englandthe basic wage a first year junior dr can earn is £29k a year, in their 2nd year that rises to £34k. That doesn’t include overtime, extras for working nights, weekends etc. it then jumps up to £40k for year 3 and to £50k for year 4.

            and yet I am told that they are so poor they can’t afford to pay the rent or even buy food.

          • Agree Consultants are well paid. The biggest earners though are the GP fund holders. Sheezus those guys can and frequently do earn upwards of £250k per year. The government has made primary care an ungoverned area of banditry.
            I’ve heard hundreds of stories of GP fund holders doing whatever they want. Hiring and firing at will ( because they hold the funds and are not accountable to anyone) and pocketing huge pay packets whilst opting out of evening, nights, weekend and public holiday cover.
            The opting out from Out-Of-Hours work has lead to the Tory party wet dream of contracting in private company providers to cover those service hours. At much much higher expense then a core NHS commissioned service would have provided. I’ve got colleagues who work in these private out of hours service providers that earn £48-65 per hour easily more than 2x NHS salaries for the same or easier workload.

          • Indeed. But for some reason the public at large doesn’t seem to be able to grasp the reailty that these people are far from underpaid. Unfortunately, as the old saying goes, Every nation gets the government it deserves…

          • Amazing dit. I live off my army pension and it is much less than £29k – I am not starving.

          • They do all come out of a 5 year medical degree with somewhere between £80,000-£100,000 in debt. Most doctors consider this debt to be a tax on their future earnings and something they can’t avoid.
            The BMA has singularily failed to get the message across that yes pay is important and not suffering from 15 years of back to back below inflation payrises shouldn’t have ever been allowed to happen. The bigger issue is around working conditions, access to specialist training rotational posts and making the NHS attractive to work in for those issues rather than looking abroad for trust me on this much much more lucrative contracts with better working conditions.
            The BMA has failed to mention those issues.

          • In additional to the other comments, it’s worth bearing in mind that the party whip has a lot of authority here- i.e. MPs who don’t vote as the party leadership tells them can end up being expelled from the party or deselected. Personally I much prefer the US system whereby Senators on either side are elected to represent their constituency and tend to vote accordingly, whether the President likes it or not.

          • Thanks, did not realize party discipline was that pronounced/severe. In the US Congress, at this point it is like herding cats, ‘ doesn’t work, and annoys the cats.’

      • There are two major financial statements every year, one is just a statement, the other a full budget, and different Chancellors fart about with which is delivered in Spring and which in Autumn. I think that this is a full budget, not just a Spring Statement. Normally there’s a finance bill after a budget which can be challenged in the Commons, but I can’t see the Tories having the guts to do that after the chaos of last year. It’s unusal for a revolt to happen, and when it does Tories rebel on tax not spend. It can be done by winning an ammendment to any finance bill that would have to be approved to enact changes required. Usually a government will make the changes ahead of time to avoid losing in public.

        The House of Lords never messes with finances, because when they last succeeded before WW1, the King intervened and threated to flood the Lords with new peers that would vote whichever way the Commons wanted (as I vaguely recall it from my history books). The Lords capitulated and agreed to neuter their own power.

        There are lots of opportunities for MPs to speak to the whips office or the backbench 1922 committee ahead of the budget. That’s all been done. The government clearly think they can push it through. There’ll be a grilling of the Chancellor afterward in various places such as the floor of the House, and in various Commons committes, such as the Treasury committee. However, IMO they can’t or won’t do anything real.

      • In a nutshell yes and no, government spending is put through an annual spending bill..in theory parliament could force a vote on the bill…but it never does..it’s debated for a couple of days with the opposition making snide remarks….it then passes without divisions ( voting) .the House of Lords does not have ant primacy on any fiscal bill and cannot vote on it. So in theory parliament ( the commons) could vote but it never does….you have to remember in the UK the executive always has the majority in parliament ( the commons) so it would never call for a vote against its annual spending bill which is considered basic government house keeping. ( it could but it would a bring down the government in a once in a generation issue)….it’s not like the U.S. system in which the executive can loss the ability to put though basic fiscal policy.

      • Short answer no, finance bills tend to just pass in the UK when the government has such a large majority. It’s not like the US where one senator either way can make the difference and parliament is more of a rubber stamp on the government.

        Plus very few MP’s in the UK actually care enough. Voting against a government finance bill would probably end their career and have them removed from the party and loose their seat at the next election.

      • I wonder what the price of gold is at the moment, the MOD really needs to keep an eye on it. If only it wasn’t soo noisy!

        Meanwhile on the other side of the pond.

        “The USD14.5 billion requested for C4ISR coffers in FY 2024, compared to the department’s USD12.8 billion proposal for those same accounts in FY 2023, and is 15% of DoD’s total USD315 billion in the FY 2024 request for major weapons systems ‘modernisation‘ accounts, according to a summary of the department’s budget blueprint released on 13 March.

        That USD315 billion is part of the department’s total USD842 billion request for FY 2024.”

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dxhh1HbXQAAiOvn.jpg

        • Possible AUKUS may eventually improve UK’s balance of trade? Wonder whether taxes generated (Income, VAT, etc.) could be partitioned for sole benefit of MoD?

          • US development of common infrastructure on any joint use bases? Previously mentioned US deployment of GBAD at USAF bases in UK, thereby reducing cost of overall requirement..

          • There are no actual ‘joint use’ airbases in the UK. Sometimes RAF bases host US aircraft on detachment but, apart from that, on the ground the RAF and USAF stay apart, even though they are all ‘RAF xxxxx’ and I include Fairford in this. So no, not even the same GBAD, not that there is much.

          • Recitation of possible methods US military might augment UK defence expenditures. Any joint use infrastructure development would be an entirely separate issue from GBAD coverage. Simple contention that potential future GBAD deployment by USAF in the UK would result in coverage of surrounding areas, thus reducing overall requirement and consequential UK expenditure,

          • I can see the US giving as little as possible on the AUKUS gravy train to the UK and Aus, I doubt we will see much in terms of our balance of trade. Virtually nothing is ring fenced in UK finance as it all goes into the same pot. Only the most ‘popular’ spenders like health seem to have any chance.

          • Actually believe it may be a case of US embracing the concept of a rising tide lifting all boats (sorry, couldn’t resist 😉).
            Seriously, relevant US political leaders are quite concerned re ChiCom activity generally, and more specifically, in the SCS. Do not believe they would tolerate screwing over the few capable, reliable and stalwart remaining allies. Simply my opinion, though. 🤔

            .

      • Mate, don’t be bothered that you don’t have a good grasp of British politics – neither do our politicians!
        Irritation about how a small defence boost is constituted, is not the stuff of no conficdence mortions.

        The £4.9bn has, I am sure, been debated in the HoC yesterday following the announcement about the refreshed IR – that may well be the only airing it gets.

        The spend is inadequate and stupid and orientated to the AUKUS summit in the States yesterday – its what the US and Australian leaders wanted to hear.
        The refreshed IR was done solely because of the war in Ukraine – very little of the extra spend helps in that regard.

        • Yes, agree that the £3Bn investment is clearly aimed at promoting AUKUS collaboration. Does not mean that it will not be necessary and beneficial, but it is clearly insufficient. Reports indicated that R. Sunak was pleased w/ conclusions of AUKUS Pillar 1 planning phase, therefore he approved the investment to expedite same. Obviously, calculations of Return on Investment (ROI) are a motivating factor in his behavior. Ergo, couch as much as possible in terms of ROI, sweet music to an accountant’s ear. Always instructed by others to know one’s audience and motivations; couldn’t hurt the cause to present a tailored argument. 🤔

    • Jon, you are right to be very concerned. In an interview with Sunak about the IR being refreshed as a consequence of the war in Ukraine and that the army had borne the brunt of equipment & munitions donations and needed re-financing, he just said that we spend a lot on Defence. The man is just a technocrat, little more than a bean-counter when it comes to Defence.
      The military funding for Ukraine support (and associated backfilling) must come out of the Treasury’s Contingency Fund, not the Defence vote – but Governments have ‘form’ in that regard.

  6. Well I hope nobody was hoping for a list cut reversals, because if you were you are going to be disappointed. There is absolutely nothing in there that suggests reversing the troop level cuts or buying new weapons as a result of the Ukraine war. I guess that may all come out in the next few weeks but I’m not optimistic. £3billion of the money is going to nuclear, mostly infrastructure by the looks of it. What’s left to restock and replace what we have given to Ukraine?

  7. I have just read the 65 page refresh and wonder what the point of it was. It regurgitates at unnecessary length much of what the 2021 Integrated Review had stated and makes just 2 substantive announcements: £3b more for the nuclear programme and £2b to replenish ammunition stocks depleted by gifts to Ukraine. The former may just reflect rising costs in the Dreadnought and warhead programmes, the latter is just a standstill.
    There is no mention of accelerating the build or acquisition schedules of major warships, land systems or combat air. No plan to increase the numbers of upgraded Ch2s nor reverse the cut in army headcount.
    In a week in which coal fired power stations were restarted to prevent blackouts the main thrust on energy security is to double down on the rush to net zero, overlooking completely the timescale to build new nuclear generation. In a month in which our dependence on food imports has been starkly revealed, no rethink on the plan to encourage rewilding rather than increased UK food production.
    I have long thought we are governed by mediocre politicians. I am reluctantly forced to conclude that they are so much worse than that.

      • It was Liz Truss that initiated the IR refresh – about the only good thing she did in her brief tenure – pity it was bodged by the Sunak government in failing to focus on security in Europe.

        • I doubt they bodged it. Their risk/benefit analysis, giving the forthcoming election and anything meaningful they could do on security in Europe in the time available, would be very different to those of us on the outside looking in.

      • I’ve read these charts a few times. What they don’t of course pick up is the effect of defence inflation being higher than general inflation. A flat lined GDP % inevitably means cuts in numbers. The only answer to this otherwise insoluble problem is the hi-lo approach which in general seems to have fallen out of favour. The type 31 could be seen as an example but we could go further: supplement expensive Typhoons with a lower cost platform for routine air policing or CAS; flesh out Ch3 numbers with a simpler lighter vehicle;build some non nuclear subs.

    • Hi Peter,

      The question I have, is this a one off payment or will it be consolidated? If it is consolidated it could represent a £2.5B up lift in annual spending on top of Boris’ uplift. Still not good enough to fix the gaping holes in our defence capability, but it could be more significant than we think.

      The other point is that Hunt and Sunak are probably not expecting to keep their jobs after the next general election so if Labour get in then they’ll either have to consolidate the funds and open themselves up to accusations of spending more than we can afford or letting it lapse and being accused of not backing our armed forces in a time of great uncertainty and risk. Nice little political trap potentially. Of course, it would be very funny if the Torries won and had to deal with their little trap. Just to be clear I am not a fan of any of our political parties…

      Cheers CR

      • It’s hard to be sure but my reading is that it is a one off increase over and above what was contained in the latest 10 year equipment plan. That 2022 plan, although not containing the black hole of previous years, was already seen as unrealistic by .the NAO,not least because of its over optimistic assumption of a $1.26 exchange rate. Since then, the RN has withdrawn its proposals for both Type32 and MRSS as they were felt to be unaffordable in the initial configuration.
        The £2b for restocking ammunition is clearly a one off, the £3b for nuclear may just be to cover rising costs in both submarine and warhead programmes. But given the large increase in the 10 year 2022 nuclear forecast over 2021, it could be genuinely additional or accelerated funding.
        I really don’t understand why so much effort is put into publishing yet another review without making these matters clear.

        • Hi Peter,

          We had this same conversion when the last up lift was announced. I suspect that this one will end up being consolidated. Two reasons:

          1) The continuing war in Ukraine. Dispite President Zelensky’s claim that this is the year they win I think there is a significant risk that it could continue for another year at least, especially if China does step up to support Russia as this will create a link between the war in Europe and any potential conflict in the South China Sea;

          2) The economic crash has so far not really bitten although many of us are feeling the pressure on our bills the economy is holding up surprisingly well.

          We’ll see. Whilst I am disappointed at the overall lack of investment across the board the SSN programme now has a very sound footing as there are three allies tied into the project which will make very difficult politically (and probably contractually as well) for any of them to back out.

          Cheers CR

  8. What about the Army how are we rebuilding it? Are we getting much heavy armour so the British army can conduct offensive operations? This seems like a pathetic announcement from the British government it really does.

  9. As I predicted in a recent comment, the Treasury’s thinking is as cynical as ever. The true target is not the UK’s land punch in Europe but the Far East. Some may rightly say that’s right, but there is a clear need to renew the UK’s land forces strength. Sadly, the Treasury knows Russia’s land fighting is in serious decline and could take ten years or thereabouts to reform, so there is no need to boost CH3 numbers now? That said, the Minister will have less to play with if he or she wants to increase the current 148 CH3 in future, with just five Billion over two years. I fear all we may get due to the shortfall (from the predicted 11 Billion) is an additional 20 vehicles. Another big question, what about Warrior replacement is that now punted out until 2026/7?

    • I don’t think the Treasury staff include credible defence analysts – that should be what the MoD do.
      None of that £4.9bn is slated for boosting army capital equipment programmes (new procurement or upgrades) in general or the CR3 programme specifically.
      What is the significance of the 2026/7 date?

      • Thank you Graham for your post on Ashcuch depot. Sadly, the MOD is subordinate to the Treaury regardless of what they say. Worst still, the Prime Minister is an ex-chancellor so he knows all the MOD tricks. Hopefully, the Labour Government will give the Army a boost and consider increasing CH3 numbers and define a Warrior replacement and that should be around 2026/7. The current emphasis is truly on the Far East and cyber and not Russia’s land capabilities, which are near enough depleted. The latter has a direct bearing on the Army’s restructuring, which appears to be stalling before it gets going. Ajax will happen and so will CH3 and Boxer so it’s not all doom and gloom.

        • Maurice. Certainly Treasury ‘rule the roost’ as far as funding goes – my comment was that clever defence analysis is the province of MoD not Treasury.

          Ben Wallace indicated that he was alive to increasing CR3 numbers, so we should not have to wait 2 years for Labour to do so.

          Warrior replacement was stated in May 2021 – our lucky armoured infantry guys are to get some version of Boxer.
          https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/03/23/warrior-capability-sustainment-program-axed-in-favor-of-boxer/

          To rule out Russia as a serious threat would be a mistake – they tend to return from unsucessful military adventures – and to threaten a different country after a few years to ‘regroup’.

          • The regrouping is the danger, as you say but the blokes in Whitehall think about the here and now. Rapid rearmourment of the Russian Army could be achieved in a few years if China were to get serious about its awkward friend’s needs, especially in the face of the new sub treaty AUKAS. However, would they have enough trained crews available? This must be a factor that governs Russia’s recovery.

            The big news toady are the six or nine Archers that will be bought to back fill the AS90s given to Ukraine. I guess if these prove to be capable pieces of kit then more are sure to follow?

            P.S. Ashcurch upgrades are a far cry from the ideas to sell off the depot for thousands of blasted houses. We need to be greatful some one in Whitehall saw sense in supporting our reserve military fleets.

          • Sadly the Russians (and before them, the Soviets) have always bounced back to commit further aggressive invasions with their army.

            Interesting news about Archer. I muse on the fact that we are now buying 6-9 systems, when we bought 179 AS-90s back in the day.
            Unless things have changed an artillery regiment has 24 tube artillery guns so a follow on-order must be coming sometime.

  10. It is very disappointing that there has been no announcement of the uplift in funding needed to recapitalise some of the U.K armed forces.

    But that wasn’t on the cards today and never was, today was all about international cooperation and politically necessary steps.
    To actually call this a boost to defence spending is correct but has little to do with the current threat or what we need right now.

    Today was a bit of small immediate good new regarding Ammunition stocks and investment in ensuring we have an adequately funded production supply line.

    The big bit is the real investment in our long term Nuclear and Submarine research, design and production capacity.
    If you put aside the disappointment in what was missing and focus on what was actually announced it is an absolutely essential, logical and timely investment in our long term defence.
    Building 4 to 7 boats in a class is extraordinarily expensive, inefficient and unsustainable.

    But uplift our facilities, increase trained staffing and really well focused investment so we can play a full part in AUKUS is wonderful news.

    We have all lamented where our Strategically vital defence industries have gone, well this secures the future of the biggest of the lot.
    Building major parts of a British designed class of 12 for Australia, plus the ones the RN will need makes it cost effective, affordable and sustainable.
    The big threat in the World is China, the US cannot match their industrial capacity on their own. But if they have 60 USN boats plus 20 U.K/Australian ones you have mass and that is what is required.
    We have already seen the benefits of building in partnership with the lowering of the unit costs of T26. I will not be surprised if we commit to more SSN(R) / AUKUS to replace the 7 Astutes, the secret to all of this is a drumbeat of @1 SSN pa for 20 years then 4 SSBN.
    Everyone will focus on the obvious beneficiaries of BAe at Barrow and RR here in Derby, but it is way more than that there is already £400 million investment in Sheffield Forge masters (Now owned by MOD) and many other companies in the supply chain.

    So this is really great news, we just need someone to persuade them to increase the number of MBT, F35B, Helicopters, replace the SPG and a few other bits.

  11. It’s a start but it seems like a lot less than is actually needed. I think we need more to build up our forces for when the SHTF. Sunak still seems to be trying hard to get away with the least he can even after years of that idiocy led to Putin invading Ukraine(again) & China feeling confident enough to bully & threaten Taiwan.

  13. The IR2023 is distinctly underwhelming documents, lots of generalities and very little detail – even where this would have been pertinent and easy to include. A confirmation that LRG(S) would form as planned this year, based in Oman. It suddenly seems very uncertain. Has China quietly warned the UK it couldn’t tolerate this on top of AUKUS? Or has India expressed displeasure at a small UK force potentially appearing in the Indian Ocean – a region where it is working hard to become the dominant military power as the USN’s presence vanishes. An old but interesting article: https://warontherocks.com/2021/05/the-u-s-navy-in-the-indian-ocean-indias-goldilocks-dilemma/

  14. I read last week the REAL budget will be in 2024, so maybe the ‘meat and potatoes’ of defence will be addressed then – but I wouldn’t hold my breath!

    Also, why is the defence budget paying for AUKUS (ref 3 of the 5Bn announced today)? – just like the nuclear deterrent that was Treasury funded then got dumped into the MoD’s lap and now consumes a cool 13% of said budget!

    I just don’t understand why our politicians – be they Conservative, Labour or otherwise – have a told aversion to defence. Yes, we have all heard the mantra that there are no votes in defence but there has to be more to it than that. France, Poland, Germany and Japan have all seen the writing on the wall and committed to huge defence spending increases but our government has chosen to ignore the world we live in; Labour will be no different and it will be to our peril!

    • It’s possible that 2024 will be the announcements for the Army so they can base requirements based upon what happens this year in Ukraine….

      In 2022 Ukraine was generally on the back foot, using weapons such as NLAW and Javelin in a defensive situation as it slowed and stopped Russia’s invasion. True Ukraine was able to retake territory, but in the case of Kyiv and Kherson the territory was gained after catastrophic Russian failures and them running away as fast as possible.

      In 2023 Ukraine will go on the offensive. This is where we will really see how Western offensive weapons, like MBTs perform. Barring a complete collapse in morale and discipline in Russian forces, which is possible, Ukraine is going to have to fight hard for all the territory it retakes. I suspect the performance of these weapons will shape future land-warfare thinking, and purchasing.

      • You think HMG will spend a lot on the army in an election year!! No, they won’t. The spend will be on the stuff the people are interested in.
        Ukraine’s forces with iheir smaller numbers will find it very hard to be consistently successful in the Offence.

        • In an election year priority will be on getting re-elected, which given what Labour would do to defence, should be the priority.

          But they don’t need to actually part with cash in 2024. They can announce future purchases and force expansion, and even sign contracts that have financially draconian penalty clauses should a new Labour government try to to cancel them.

          (If they think Labour are likely to win, they’re actually more likely to announce grand expansion/purchase plans so that a Labour government gets hammered in the press for subsequently cancelling them.)

          I disagree. Superior weapons and equipment, Western training, better command and control, and high-levels of motivation are all force-multipliers.
          Against Ukraine’s increasingly professional army are a Russian force comprised of reservists, conscripts and mercenaries, operating with soviet era weaponry. The Russians have demonstrated a lack of logistics, inability to use combined arms, or conduct manoeuvre warfare.
          If Ukraine can achieve a rapid breakthrough at just a single point, the entire front-line could collapse into chaos for the Russians, resulting in another indisciplined rout.

          • Defence will be bottom of the list of important factors in any voting intentions poll that the parties do ahead of the next election. This was it, there is unlikely to be any more new funding announced until after it.

            The Government has likely done a risk analysis and decided that on balance, based on the real intelligence they have, as opposed to what we have, there is very little likelihood of the Russians moving further west than Ukraine. Plus even if they did, given production leadtimes, there is very little that they have time to spend money on that would have any impact, especially given how little of it now is made totally in the UK.

            As to your comments on Ukraine, it is the Russians poised for a breakthrough but you are correct that the frontline could dissolve into chaos. Watch what is happening west of Soledar.

          • Will the Russians be taking Soledar before your predicted conquest if Odesa or the push to the Polish border? 🤣😂🤣

            I dispute everything that comes past the lips, and from the pen, of a loathsome individual who supports the committing of war crimes; ie you.

          • Anyone with a little knowledge and experience disputes the nazi supporting garbage you come out with, you are wrong on every single occasion, then change your comments and opinion, or ignore challenging responses to you, and continue to waffle Putin directed drivel, thinking maybe we haven’t noticed. Anyway any condemnation yet, of this illegal invasion of Ukraine and condemnation of the rape and murder of females and children by Russian forces? Nope, never will be, will there…..

          • What do you think Labour would do to Defence? Conservatives have cut Defence assets (manpower and platforms) drastically since 2010. Is there much more that Labour could cut?
            [Don’t forget that we have Labour to thank for our fantastic new aircraft carriers].

          • Don’t forget Labour cancelled the original fantastic CVA-01 aircraft carriers, the 5th Polaris, the Hawker Sidney P.1154 supersonic Harrier, BAC TSR2, decided to withdraw East of Aden, etc etc l
            and that was all done by just one Labour Defence Secretary!!

            Corbyn may no-longer be leader, but those in charge were in his cabinet and supported him. As we know he wanted the Trident submarines to sail around without any actual missiles on board.
            Labour is instinctively suspicious of the military and has traditional sympathies towards Russia – not forgetting all those Labour MPs who actively spied for the USSR.

            Labour wouldn’t cut manpower, as that would be obvious. They’d simply cut capability by cutting down on procurement, saving money that can then be thrown into the NHS black-hole. They’d try and avoid cutting U.K. procurement – such as U.K. built Boxers – but they’d cut foreign purchases such as AS90 replacement, Tomahawks, etc.
            They would probably have tried to cut or delay SSN(R) but hopefully AUKUS has tied their hands on that matter.
            The fate of T32 and T83 would come down to whether they think they can use these to swing seats from the SNP to them or not.

            So more Tommies, but spending their time polishing boots and peeling potatoes rather than actually undergoing training and combat exercises.

    • “… France, Poland, Germany and Japan have all seen the writing on the wall and committed to huge defence spending increases”

      Yes but France, Germany and Japan have all been spending significantly less than 2% of GDP on defence. Arguably France and Germany are only now actually meeting their 2014 NATO commitments to 2% spending. Japan has now chosen to increase defence spending from about 1% of GDP for obvious local reasons, with China, Russia and N.Korea all in the neighbourhood.

      • Hi Nigel,

        Interesting link, thanks.

        There is headroom to sort all sorts of stuff not just defence, but that would mean politicians dropping their dogma, serving the country as a whole and actually working the problem in front of them and not the problem they want to see. In otherwords, pragmatism mixed with a dollop of honesty and a pitch of common sense… These ingredients if mixed in the right proportions would also enable the parties to develop national consus on key issues, as Australia has with defence.

        Unfortunately, our lot are too deeply entrenched. Basically, we’re sc***ed.

        Nevermind the sun as just come out… Just checked and yep it is the sun so happy days.

        Cheers CR

    • David,
      If the real budget is in 2024, then BEWARE – that is an election year and it will be full of good stuff on Education, Health, tax breaks, social security etc – don’t expect Defence to be a big winner.
      Also, why is the defence budget paying to restock munitions expended in the Ukraine war? – that should come from HM Treasury’s Contingency Fund.

  15. OK its not the big increase most on this site wanted, but I do take a crumb of comfort, that the RN, in the long run, may, just may, nearly double the number of SSNs it has now. Granted, a lot could happen between now & then.

    • Think in the future with Russia being not a large threat and an ever growing China, the Navy will prosper, as will the RAF with Tempest which now cannot fail with Japan on board. Future doesn’t look too bright for the army.

      • Future has not looked bright for the army for at least the last 30 years.
        Russia not a large threat? Have you heard of Putin and his revanchist agenda?

    • Who actually said that we could double the size of the RN’s SSN fleet – seems to be media speculation. If, so, I doubt there will be much money available for the army to comprehensively recapitalise.

      • Well exact numbers are not given, hence me hedging a bit. It does seem that sending RN SSN to Australia/Pacific means the UK needs more of them. The various things I have read in the last day seem to suggest anywhere between 10 to 15 future RN SSN. Most saying 10-12. I suspect 15 includes RAN SSN/AUKUS. If so, that implies 10 RN SSN

        • Thanks John. We certainly need a lot more that 7 attack subs. (We had 28 in the early 80s – and the world’s seas have not got any smaller).
          If one of our 7 is out defending the bomber SSBN and 2-3 are alongside for maintenance/overhaul etc, then we have just 3 or 4 available for tasking.
          Intuitively I think we need a SSK/SSN mix of many more than 10 attack subs.

  17. £5bn… farcical. It might as well be crypto currency! So that’ll mean more embarrassing cuts to the overstretched, underfunded, abused Army then.

  18. Funding to replace equipment and ammunition that was donated to a foreign country in order to aid it should be funded by…the foreign aid budget. In fact my view is that the entire foreign aid budget should be re-purposed just for Ukraine. Therefore defence spending can be used to actually enhance our capabilities rather than replacing lost capability.

  19. Still no commitment to increase Wedgetail, ASW jets, A400 numbers, helicopters , Challenger 3 etc. The kind of equipment the armed forces need immediately.

    • The country is getting poorer. From Junior Doctors to the MOD we are all going to have to learn to live frugally…..it’s a skill. 😉
      I see we just bought some ‘pre-owned’ Archer artillery from the Swedish charity shop.

  21. Not eneough a lot of that 5bmill will go on repalcement of the kit weve given Ukraine. Smoke and mirrors once again by Governnemnt

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here