‘Britain could soon lose control of its defence industry’ – expert Q&A.
Miltary spending is surging in the face of heightened geopolitical tensions. The UK plans to hike its defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, amounting to £87 billion a year.
This is an increase from around 2.3% today, which Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said is necessary in an “increasingly dangerous” world.
This article is the opinion of the author (Keith Hartley, University of York) and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
It comes at the same time as the US has signed off on a US$95 billion (£76 billion) military aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. Meanwhile, the once dovish Germans want to become Nato’s leaders in Europe, and nations like France and Sweden are also pushing for increased military commitments.
We asked Keith Hartley, a defence specialist and emeritus professor of economics at the University of York, to offer his views on how defence will change in the years to come.
What will spending increases mean overall?
You’re going to see a general increase in the demand for equipment. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri), world military spending grew 7% in real terms in 2023, rising for the ninth consecutive year. This looks very likely to continue, not least because it takes time to ramp up production.
Global military spend 2008-23
You can’t just turn on the tap and produce far more Eurofighters than you have been planning. Look at what happened in the run-up to the second world war. The UK built thousands of Hurricanes, Spitfires, Lancasters and Halifaxes, but it meant increased labour, new factories and shadow factories (meaning units converted from other kinds of production). This programme dated back to the mid-1930s.
What kinds of change are we going to see?
An important change relates to the equipment that militaries will use in future. On the one hand, we’re seeing the development of what are sometimes called Augustine weapons systems, referring to new generations of equipment that are more complex and hi-tech than existing ones.
These are named after Norman Augustine, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin, who wrote a book forecasting that costs would rise so much as military technology grew more complex that countries would eventually only be able to afford a single warship, a single tank and a single aircraft. This trend has been happening for some time. For example, it used to be the case that Britain’s Royal Air Force bought 1,000 Hunter aircraft; now it’s relying on fewer than 150 Eurofighter Typhoons.
At the same time, you’ve got the development of very cheap but quite capable drones. For example, you can have a drone that goes out to sea and does aerial reconnaissance surveillance, staying there for hours without a manned crew. And while we think of drones as machines in the air, that’s going to change too. We’re going to see unmanned submarines, for instance, as well as drones in space.
So, one big question is to what extent we’ll rely on Augustine systems, and to what extent drones. Rather than highly expensive Eurofighters, we might have to make do with drones much more in future.
How would this affect the defence industry?
We’re moving to a situation where companies won’t be able to sell enough Augustine systems, so they’ll increasingly be looking towards international mergers to make the business viable.
At the moment, Europe is developing two different advanced combat aircraft to replace Eurofighter Typhoons. France, Germany and Spain are developing one known as the Future Combat Air System (FCAS), while Britain, Japan and Italy are producing a rival called the Tempest.
It’s going to be very costly for those nations to produce these similar combat aircraft, and countries won’t be able to afford them in large numbers. Typhoons cost about £100 million per aircraft, but the Tempest could cost five times that. So there’s every incentive for these buying countries to combine their orders, by merging their principal defence companies, to get a decent production run and share production costs.
It’s therefore likely we’ll continue the trend of a smaller number of bigger defence firms. For instance, Britain’s aerospace industry is dominated by BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce. I increasingly see those firms merging with, say, Airbus, or moving in an American direction and merging with a Boeing or a Lockheed. This means that you will increasingly see foreign firms playing a larger role in national defence, both in the UK and elsewhere.
Would national governments tolerate that?
It will certainly be interesting. In the early 2010s, BAE was going to merge with Airbus owner EADS (the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company), but the German government opposed it.
Clearly, governments would have a worry about foreign takeovers in future – but they haven’t got much choice, frankly. The French seem to believe thou shalt not buy weapons from foreign companies, but they have got a limited budget. Similarly, Sweden used to pride itself on having an independent defence industry, but can’t afford it now.
With BAE or Rolls-Royce, I’d hesitate about them being the senior partner in a merger if it’s a US deal. The US would want to lead – and they’ve got the market to be the leader. I’m not sure how you get around that.
Similarly, I think we’ll see more cooperation between national militaries. France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, has been talking recently about a more integrated European military, which makes sense because national markets in Europe and indeed Britain are so small. But I do despair of Europe ever getting its act together.
Where is UK defence spending heading?
Both the main UK parties seem committed to 2.5% defence spending as a proportion of GDP. If that’s the commitment but the cost of Augustine systems is going through the roof, you’ll be paying more for less. It’s similar to the situation in the NHS.
But I do think it will happen, particularly if there’s pressure from people like Donald Trump (who wants Europe to contribute more to Nato’s defence costs). But it’s going to be at the expense of civil goods and services. It’s a classic case of guns v butter, Tridents v the health service.
Keith Hartley, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of York. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Tempest is a nonsensical dream. Billions in development and now 500m per copy for a giant multi engine strike fighter that probably won’t receive any funding for updates during its design life? The UK likes to criticize the F-35 program, but it’s about to find out just how difficult and expensive a 5th/6th gen program is.
The UK should join the Swedish program for the gripen replacement and buy smaller, more numerous (cheaper) aircraft. If you need a strike aircraft buy a dozen B-21 and be done with it.
500 million? You’re out of your mind. Tempest is the one programme keeping the UK fighter jet industry alive right now, with EF winding down. Also, we’re not going it alone, we have Italy and Japan (whose recent military uptick means it will likely be the partner with the deepest pockets).
To your point about the B-21, it seems unlikely that the US will sell, much like the F-22. So, if you want the UK to have stealth bomber strike capability, we’d have to make our own. That would be even more expensive.
They US quite possibly would sell sell the B-21 to the UK (I believe the UK at one point had the opportunity to buy the F22) but 1. The UK couldn’t afford it and 2. The UK couldn’t afford the weapon stockpile to equip a B-21, we probably don’t even have a large enough stockpile to equip all our aircraft at once and certainly not enough to equip all 7 Astutes with cruise missiles for example.
Back to the point though, BAE systems are probably large enough to cope, given the other subsidiaries around the world and Rolls Royce maybe ok with the fact every ship needs an engine and every aircraft will likely have 2 and there aren’t that many jet engine manufacturers around.
I don’t think that idea that the F-22 was ever seriously available to the RAF is plausible. The UK was pushing on with the Typhoon programme, so an air to air fighter was already being procured. The MoD penny pinchers would have had a heart attack at the idea of a split fleet. Furthermore, the UK was already invested in the JSF, so ultimately, the F-22 was useless to them.
On your point about not being able to equip them, I 100% agree.
Agreed that the F-22 wasn’t a practical option that would have ever been pursued by the UK but I think at that time if the UK had have wanted it, it was probably the only country that could have had it
Very possibly at some point, after all since those days both Israel and Japan got some way in negotiations to acquire them, it just became after deliberations deemed more expensive to reopen production lines than produce a new aircraft in one instance and reluctance to reduce the limited available numbers to the USAF in the other.
The US has already offered the B-21 to Australia “If they desire it”
Yeah two points buying as you say B-21s is not going to happen the whole cost would be unthinkable considering as you say all the support and weapon add ons, and it’s also a near one trick pony and if its ability to do that is seriously compromised for Britain it would be a total disaster akin to our nuclear submarines being traceable wherever they go.
The only reason Tempest is possible is the costs are being shared and the importance to British jobs, interests and expertise and keeping Bae and others no doubt committed to the UK, which as our biggest manufacturer is vital. In the last list I saw in 2023 Bae is, can’t remember exactly but about 10th to 12th biggest Defence business in the World the others ahead being American or Chinese I believe, so it certainly has heft and potential to grow as does RR, especially as the US would not I’m sure like it to join with one of the other two engine giants for reasons of competition. If required Cooperation of the sort RR was doing a decade ago with GE on their F-35 alternative engine would be better for all concerned I suspect. Both benefitted from it and exploiting the technology in their new designs.
To be fair to Chris, the article did say
Which in itself is an unfounded claim but at least he isn’t entirely nonsensical. NGAD is supposed to cost up to $300 million, so Tempest being British/Japanese/Italian budgeted rather than US budgeted will probably be around £200 million, if that.
Source? The article you are commenting on.
the Article that you’re commenting on genius
I completely disagree. Even if tempest cost £500m a larger chunk of that will make its way back to the treasury with lots more being recycled through the economy over and over. The spares and maintenance costs produce similar results economically.
Purchasing something foreign that’s even less than half the price will not be cheaper over the life of the program.
Then the issue comes when your second, third, tenth on the priority list for spares, weapon integration etc etc.
Some items have to be made in the U.K. like front line aircraft, drones, submarines, ships, ammo etc.
while some items may be bought from another country careful consideration has to be given to consider spares, wartime use and what else is available if the foreign systems become unavailable.
Absolutely and the cost of likely losing your chief indigenous defence supplier (possibly your second too and the two largest manufacturers) and all the implications of that on jobs and expertise you will never get back, does not bear thinking about. It’s not simply the cost of two aircraft per airframe after all. Equally the fact the Raider is limited in what it can do you would still need to purchase another aircraft for air superiority and mainstream attack be it a foreign competitor or more F-35s of the A version and accept you use it as your prime Air Superiority platform even though it’s not really designed for that job, so hope it’s good enough.
I am not even going to argue with this it falls down on any logic from the cirs5 sentence and I suspect nearly everyone here will recognise that.
As for the content in the article, Bae and DASA were going to merge circa 1998 but the distraction of Bae wanting to buy GEC defence systems which itself had been trying to buy Bae for years scuppered that and thus Airbus and EADs took their final form with Bae selling its civil interests to Airbus. Bae will not merge with Airbus EADs now but as I have long argued if its UK business doesn’t get the business it needs to flourish be it Govt or exports what will happen is that Bae will move its head office to the US. The only question then becomes does it take its uk business with it simply making it a subsidiary or does it sell off the bulk to Airbus EADs and use the money to further expand in the US. The question after that is whether it becomes big enough there to thrive or having likely expanded in that Country for further years it feels big enough to forge at least a semblance of equality (not actual mind I suspect) in any merger deal there. It will be not dissimilar to how arm and DeepMind have increasingly become US companies with UK interests.
One thing is for sure the only way to delay it or avoid it at least for the foreseeable future is programmes like Tempest and SS AUKUS where independence from the US can offer advantages, growth, profit and influence and thus at the end of the day added value for investors that the board can sell to them over tying themselves at the hip to the US and it’s political control.
Probably premature for any SWAG re GCAP cost estimate, other than the published NGAD estimate of $300M/copy +/- X%. The Japanese could possibly inject sufficient manufacturing discipline to restrain cost growth, but certainly not a guarantee. If the Brits succeed in increasing defence expenditures to 2.5% of GDP, there may be sufficient budgetary headroom to purchase a relatively small fleet, eventually.
Certainly agree that the purchase of a squadron of B-21 a/c would be a worthwhile investment for UK. Diversity in weapon delivery systems would complicate the target planning function of the Orcs and even ChiComs, provided there was a concomitant investment in robust GBAD to protect the MOB. Worst case scenario, during a period of crisis, would be an RAF varianrion of the old SAC airborne alert status. Baseline nuke weapons complement of B-61-12 &13 would be sufficient on an interim basis. Believe that a sale would be authorized and expedited under the auspices of AUKUS, as we are already handing over the keys to the military tech kingdom via insertion of next gen US tech in SSN-A. 🤔
… variation…🙄
Your delusional about our politicians.if they save billions on Tempest they will spend it on wind turbines etc.Same as that old chestnut cancel Trident and spend it on conventional arms.They won’t. And maintaining 12 B21s would use up a vast amount of the RAFs budget.
Airbus is wiping the floor with Boeing, RR has driven P&W out of the market and BAe built a major US business. Yes we need to drive harder, but this seems obtuse.
Yes BAE is one of the largest US defence contractors and RR is increasingly the world leader in jet engines.
Both have a golden share owned by the British government and can’t be taken over.
Airbus merger with BAE was basically Airbus moving to the UK and the UK government would have retained its golden share.
No way the government would now allow such a merger.
If the UK focuses on anything it should be getting leading British companies back from European control, Leonardo Radars and EW in Edinburgh and Thales Sonar systems.
The world leader in jet engines is GE. P&W (Raytheon) is second and RR is third.
I was referring more to technology than volume especially with ultra fan. RR seems to have worked out most of the kinks in its new engine program while GE and PW are still suffering.
RR even win a USAF contract which should be impossible for a foreign company.
The Trent 7000 is a mess, to the point it is hurting airbus sales. GE is top dog, P&W is also a mess.
That is not true. The RR T7000 engine on the A330neo (only engine option) is fine. The engine that has been a mess is the T1000/TEN that is offered on the B787 Dreamliner. The problems on that engine have been fixed at great expense by RR.
The current RR commercial engine lineup, like all the current modern high bypass ratio engines from it competitors PW (GTF) and GE (LEAP, GEnx, GE9X), suffer from durability issues (time on wing). The aviation media, which is predominately American, more often than not harps on the troubles of RR, the only real competitor to the American 2, while not comment or understating the issues facing the USA manufacturers. Case in point is the current PW GTF problems that have grounded 100 of Airbus A320/21 and A220 aircraft. The GE LEAP engine also has issues as does the GE9X (had to have a major redesigned just like RR T1000/TEN) destined for the B777X. The GEnx has also had durability issues, not as bad as the competing RR T1000/TEN, on the B787 Dreamliner.
Air Belgium literally gave the A330neo’s back to airbus because of the T7000 engine problems. It has severe crosswind limitations (10 knots) due to asymmetrical air flow causing compressor stalls.
Right let’s get some perspective here. Air Belgium were in financial trouble for years before delivery of those 2 aircraft. Yes one had a hydraulic fault on a flight and returned to Belgium where ‘metal objects’ were discovered in one engine. Airbus refused to take any responsibility for it and the quote from RR is as follows
‘“As far as we are aware this is not an engine issue. The Trent 7000 engines on these aircraft have performed well and have delivered industry-leading levels of reliability and availability during the time they have been operated by the airline. Air Belgium remains a valued customer.”
That aircraft remains at the airport unused, however the other one now flies with Lot and has experienced no problems whatsoever. One has to be very careful listening to an Airline who’s main backers appear to be refusing to give it further investment, can’t really afford to fly large aircraft it previously and probably unwisely ordered and clearly is keen to present an argument that helps it extract finance in any way it can to help smooth the long term operational problems they have experienced which may include blaming everyone else where possible for their serious long term operational problems. So let’s not pre judge any single circumstance just yet.
where do you get this stuff?
Well that sounds like old news tbh, it was delayed for a while by durability problems with the Trent 1000 on which it was based which delayed the 7000 development as a knock on for a while, but it has achieved 99.9% dispatch reliability years ago and only affected early airline orders during 2017 to 2019 period until output caught up. So hopefully the early delays, not unusual after all with new engine technology, have been sorted, certainly haven’t read of anything since certainly nothing to the effect it’s a mess.
True overall but in some important segments I was reading RR have a very big chunk and certainly only second to GE in some and certainly competitively looking stronger presently that P&W though I can’t remember the exact details presently so can’t add any more unfortunately.
I’m still pissed off with what we did with Racal a massive missed opportunity in an award winning business that was reaching a size where double digit growth was no longer practical but miffed the City as a result. Too often the fact in British business as indeed was expressed by creator Herman Hauser when arm was sold into foreign ownership and a few months back by the originator of DeepMind when he said he preferred to start new businesses in California because Britain and the City are far to conservative and risk averse. Bit of a problem when such qualities once fed the Empire and Industrial Revolution and still do in many Countries.
There just isn’t the capital available in London to fund things.
Really you have to thank Gordon Brown for destroying the pensions industry for that and then overregulation on top of it.
Unfortunately the final salary schemes pumped the London stock market for years – that was when British invested in British……
👍👍
PW GTF engine is now selling well.GE and CFM(GE +Safran) is also big. I am not optimist about RR since it has only engines for big aircraft.
Turbofan manufacturers make their money on maintenance and rebuild (not new sales) and RR have a very healthy installed base, basically exclusive on AB wide bodies.
Also bigger engines have shorter maintenance cycles, and no one does triple spool outside RR. Whereas the likes of CFM’s have to compete with independent MROs.
So RR are not in great shape but they are not in deep trouble either.
Just to say, I don’t know everything regarding Safran, but I can just say that they are hiring a lot of my countries blue collar and white collar alike. All production lines are increasing capacity in engine departments.
They are more than a one trick pony. RR is still a major supplier to IAE although they sold their stake in V2500 to UTC (P&W), it powers the A219/20/21 as well as Embraer civil and military jet products (and outsells SAFRAN/GE CFM powered 737s). RR make the BR700 family of small fans too, which power Bombadier’s small jets and also the Gulfstreams and are re-engining B-52s. They also make plenty of turboprops/shafts for the likes of C-130, V-22, A400, Wildcat, A129, Saab 2000, C-27, as well as their Adour, EJ200 and F-35 Liftfans for military jets – and developing new options for both Tempest and F-35… and MT30 naval gas turbines (adopted by UK, Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, USA) in addition to the Trent family (with a successor under development) which pretty much exclusively powers most large Airbus products. They also have major investments in MTU diesels and in nuclear.
Not true though is it it has a whole range of German produced smaller engines popular on Business jets and the Pearl engines being developed from the that BR series and Allison engines too of course come into the equation.
BR series, Pearl, Allison engines tend to refute that assumption.
how is airbus ‘wiping the flood with boeing’? boeing is outselling and outdelivering airbus in widebody sales which is where the money is. complete nonsense about P&W
it’s not…Airbus widened order and delivery edge over Boeing in 2023source: flightglobal
If gene therapy allows us to build a cheaper NHS, then there may be more money for platforms.
Remember that the RN didn’t have that many ironclads in the 19th century, and they had the largest navy in the world- it took the development of the Royal Sovereign and Majestic predreadnoughts for mass-produced metal ships to really get going. I suspect we might manage to get around the problems we face, but it will require alot of thinking and shuffling of resources to do so.
Well we did have the most powerful iron warship in the World in the mid 19th Century ie Warrior which made all others obsolete over night and which many claim to be the first true Iron warship. Problem is that as when Dreadnought arrived everything became obsolete within a decade so overt number games were probably not the best answer at that time. The Majestics were obsolete very quickly and ships launched in 1912 were being sent to the scrapyard by 1920, that damned peace dividend probably had a role back then too mind.
As far as I can see we have already lost control of most of our defence (and other) industries. I used to work in the defence and aerospace industry. I have suggested to my MP on a number of occasions that letting it all go is a disaster but it’s probably a bit late now.
why do so called experts always run us down. as useless inadequate or unable to build anything nowadays. as you know, I’m no expert. but why is it other countries a lot poorer that us can do apparently what we cannot afford.
surely if others can produce equipment , then surely so can we, the British haters always seem, to quick to sell us to the Americans or the unmighty EU.
just saying like, some nice loyal posts on here, keep it up…
Hi Chris, Britain is still alive and building some good stuff right now. I’m no expert on anything either and things are not always 100% British as we’re part of a multinational and integrated supply chain world. The Carriers, T26, Dragonfire, and Ancilia and CAMM are good current examples of 🇬🇧 design and build. I think you can let some of the nay sayers opinions get blown away by the wind.
I just saw some pics the other day of the electric MG coupe, looks bloody fantastic and very 🇬🇧 to me but I’m not sure where it’s built? It might be in 🇨🇳! Lol 😁
Sadly, the MG mark was bought by a Chinese company back in the 90’s, I think. Clever move by them, but today’s MG is nothing to do with the UK or the historic British company. Sadly.
Cheers CR
Well MG’s design office is still in the Midlands even if they are owned by and built in China!
I don’t believe much if any of it still is. After GM let SAIC have full access to its technology, the ex MG Rover lineage was dropped.
My first reply has disappeared somewhere. It’s not all bad Criss, T26, CAMM, Dragonfire, Ancilia, the QE Carriers. Pretty current and 🇬🇧!
Because what the British (or Europeans) produce costs a lot more than these poorer countries (And the quality gap is smaller year after year).
This explains why Russia can still have a military complex bigger than the whole of Europe (while having a lot of problems, I agree).
Stop looking only at GDP.
You’re right. Though when we look at FMAN FMC, meteor, Aster, challenger 3, Boxer… When you look at asterix space war exercises, and so many more successful programs in which UK is participating, sometimes leader, sometimes follower, I strongly believe that coopération in weapons manufacturing in Europe is the way to go. We’ll succeed most likely to make the MGCS and Scaf with Germany, cooperation is working. Of course France itself or UK alone are not always leaders, but the achievements are already to be considered: the front line is a bit further, more and more people wants to cooperate on the continent.
Let’s take it to the meta level: UK goal fore century before and century to come in Europe is balance of power. EU is achieving just that and you have been making it happens. This way UK is able to focus on ruling the seas and create trade routes. Cooperation is working, their is a place for UK in it. And UK will still be able to play a major role for centuries to come. But alone, let’s face it: China, India, USA, Brazil, Russia and tomorrow pan African alliances or country in stan alliances make the size and population of all major European countries alone not relevant anymore.
The best alliance model for the time being in my opinion is MBDA or Thales style. Everybody feal home in it, you can go it alone if you want and if you want to cooperate, structures are ready.
Because they’re experts and as you admitted, you’re not. Juvenile fantasies about British exceptionalism doesn’t impress the real world.
Well while we are at it can we put some realistic focus on the endless devotion to mythical German industrial excellence while so effortlessly putting down everything that Britain does. We are highly competitive indeed world leaders in some exquisite engineering categories including F1 or indeed the most prestigious civil engineering company in the World for a reason and too often it needs foreigners to tell us this because we have such a downbeat cynical attitude to this Country’s achievements. Objectivity is great, self flagellation certainly is not.
Then BAE and RR should merge and then price themselves out of a potential foreign takeover if that’s the major concern.
Imagine the potential of a single company being able to design and build an aircraft from the airframe, engine etc. the potential cost savings would be advantageous.
It’s not a concern no one can take them over due to government golden shares.
No UK Defence company or provider of a strategic resource can be taken over by a foreign country without the UK government’s approval. That doesn’t mean the UK goverment doesn’t acquiesse all the time. Golden shares are meaningless if their owners don’t give a stuff.
Newport chip fabication, the old INMOS factory and the UK’s largest chip manufacturer, was going to be taken over by a Chinese owned company and the government stopped it because of its strategic value, only to allow it to be sold to an American company, Vishay, three years later instead. And it’s not like Vishay don’t have a track record of buying manufacturing companies only to export production to cheap countries with bad labour rights. Ironic if that turns out to be one of Vishay’s production facilities in China.
wd should have a coup and take over the MOD procurement.
The trouble is that doesn’t make you immune from a take over. You only need an activist share holder to start wanting to “unlock value” and there a problem or share value to fall and you could be subject to a takeover
I think one significant weakness of the UK defence industry is that our innovators -the small companies that come up with new ideas, different ways of doing things, often cheaper ways of doing things, get snapped up by foreign investors and the IP goes out of the country. We should be seeing these as strategically important in the same way we do BAE and RR and keeping them British.
Thats not a weakness of the defence industry its an overall problem that the government (and oppsoition) doesn’t support investment. UK is increasingly a hostile place to invest. If you say the word profit now your sneered at by some as if you stole that money for someone. My pension, I can select where I want to invest, I used to invest in UK small caps, but its not a place I want to put my pension money now.
You’re preaching to the choir, I’m working in a company that has worked for nearly 5 years to secure sufficient investment to develop and build a capability that has had a recognised need and market for that entire time. Risk averse doesn’t begin to describe the environment in the UK when it comes to investment.
I totally agree – I have a startup that is facing the same thing.
Q ‘So what do you think of our business?’
A ‘Great idea;
Wonderful margins;
Huge market;
Bound to succeed.’
Q ‘Are you going to invest?’
A ‘No – we are not in that space’ [translation we don’t actually have any money to invest – unless we are sheep pilling into online supermarkets]
OK, the last bit is two years out of date but they were all putting money into something that could never, by back of an envelope calls, ever make any money.
That sounds incredibly familiar!
They would rather enter into a known entity crowded market with poor to marginal returns than try anything that someone else hasn’t already taken a punt on. Except that we’re fast running out on those initial punters, or having to rely on foreign ones.
It’s a dangerous place to be, and a bit shameful for a nation that drove the industrial revolution. Not sure when we became quite so financially timid…
Exactly the City and investors first question to new start ups in this Country is invariably about when they expect their business can be successful enough to sell, invariably to foreign companies. The Govt even presents it as ‘inward investment’ and faith in the British economy. When the creators of arm and DeepMind lament on such factors we truly should listen… but they n reality Britain is now all about making a quick buck and investing in property, here or abroad or if it goes into new businesses invests in foreign new start ups where support and long termism is more forthcoming. One of our top robot entrepreneurs went from Oxbridge to California and then to Canada to start new companies, still in her early 30s the chance of such a company setting up here is remote even though so much of the ai that originated the whole sector originated at DeepMind.
We are not spending anything like the author’s 2.3% of GDP on defence – that’s HMG’s inflated figure adding in the aid to Ukraine.
The UK’s GDP for 23/24 was £2.74 trillion, of which £54.2 bn was spent on defence. I make that defence spend 1.97% of GDP.
It of course includes.pensions and nuclear and chunks of the intelligence budget which Osborne shovelled into the defence budget in 2015. If we deduct these dodgy elements, we are in reality spending about 1.5% and simply lying about it.
The defence spend is not going to increase to £87bn a year as stated. The promised increase of £72bn is spread over six years, so £12bn a year on average. That would take the defence spend to 66.2bn pa, not £87bn.
It is all a fiction though, as the Conservatives will not be in power.and not deciding anything about spending. It is just an election ploy to.pretend they are strong on defence. After 14 years of hacking the Army and RAF down to way below the minimum size needed, not sure the informed public will buy the message. But of course the other 90% will swallow it whole.
But you’re assuming Ukraine aid wil still be getting paid at the end of the decade. Once the Ukraine funding stops the 2.5% commitment will remain which will translate into more funding.
Just as with the 0.5% then 0.7% spending on foreign aid it will be very difficult for any future government to just ignore it or revert back to 2%.
I’m not assuming anything about Ukraine spending. It should and would normally be treated as an Urgent Operational Requirement and paid from Treasury reserves.
Of course it has not been, all these increased funds for defence that the government keeps announcing have not made it into the defence budget,. The money has gone to Ukraine in cash or kind. So defence is still sitting on 1.97% of GDP and no doubt will continue to sit there until such time as the Ukraine war comes to a halt.
You seem to be assuming that, at that point, defence will finally get some extra money. But what if there is a large Ukraine rebuilding task to be funded by the allies? On past form, it must be pretty likely that the money would again be siphoned off from the defence budget, which HMG treats as a general piggy bank.
We must hope that Starmer will be more honest and less tricky than the present shower.
So basically, I think you are an incurable optimist if you really think that UK defence is going to get a 25% uplift in budget by 2030.
Totally agree, My vote for Corbyn would have seen defence spending off the chart. The reality is the bar on spending is set during the election campaign, Labour would preferred to focus on chlorinated chicken than defence. Quite why anyone aligns themsleves with the Tories or Labour is beyond me.
The Lib Dems surprised me by announcing at their party conference last October that they would overturn the cuts to army manpower and restore it to its previous strength of 82,000. Knock me over with a feather!
They won’t be forming a government but still good that the need to increase defence capability has got some solid traction in Parliament.
I will read their manifesto with some interest.
The Lib Dems also said they would take over the water industry, have they a magic money tree ?
Just a deep hole to push money into…….
It’s unfair to suggest the current government haven’t decided anything meaningful on UK defence spending. They decided not to increase spending this year and to continue the cuts to Army manpower. Both very meaningful to the services and our conventional deterrence posture.
You sir are totally correct. The government constantly lie about defence. If the budget was as big as they say it is why is everything getting cut.
I said previously I estimated defence spending to be around 1.5%. For a nuclear power trying to act at the top tier it’s a disgrace.
The conservative government have slashed defence in the U.K. and instead of being honest they constantly lie and fiddle budgets.
I would have more respect if they just told the truth
NATO says that the 2010 spending agreement is on track, which they don’t have to do if it wasn’t true.
So 2% GDP is the floor not ceiling spending and UK has achieved 2.1% by the HM Treasury trick of counting the CAS strategic deterrent with the MoD spending. The reality being much less than 2% at MoD.
Typical weasel words from the out going politicians “target 2.5% by 2030, as economic conditions allow”.
The Peace Dividend delusion has allowed politicians to safeguard their electoral prospects by shifting Defence spending to social provision and even war in Europe hasn’t enabled them to pivot back to Defence, the first responsibility of the nation state.
The German government announced €100 Bn additional Defence spending but decades of Marshall Plan dependence on US and UK forces will need a strategic approach to be responsible for European defence.
So less about European delinquency and more about overcoming the Peace Dividend delusion and FSB kompromat attempts to persuade voters that Germany should not be trusted to play its fair share on defence. Also UK has useless carriers and no aircraft so don’t waste your time joining up.. Lies
Whilst we “depend” on the US? It will always be so. The American MIC has for too long held the power to restrict development of its products sold. That is a monopoly, not good business practice. The F35 is an example of this farce. And yet again, “mass” is proving more important than tech. Tech is no good if it runs out in two weeks. Mass on the other hand will always win a conflict in the end.
I so agree John. Our one war-fighting division is well under strength, having only two manoeuvre brigades, which is a pretty dismal state of affairs that reflects badly on the UK’s standing with our allies. The much-depleted RAF is in the same boat, with nothing like the mass needed to make much impact in a peer war.
Yes, 3 Arm Inf Div does need.some new and additional kit, the latter including more combat and utility helicopters, a larger pool of tanks, an organic anti-tank regt and probably an assault pioneer one as well, and so on. But the main need is the raising of a third arm inf bde and an early increase in the numbers in the css units.
We could add 100 additional aircraft to the RAF and it would still be a very small force with which to accomplish much.
HMG and MOD seem to have got into a mindset that the NATO allies can do the warfighting bit, we will just supply some troops for the rear of the battle area and some aircraft primarily to defend the UK homeland.
They have spent 14 years reducing what little mass we had retained to hopelessly low and seriously inadequate numbers. Liam Fox said something in a TV interview last month which explained a lot: in the then-new Conservative administration, ‘We decided to prioritise the Navy’. That might fit with the political euphoria (in some quarters) about post-Brexit global Britain but made little strategic sense then and even less so now. But it was a jolly good excuse to cut Army and RAF to r8bbons.
Mass of course costs money and anyway, it’s not as much fun for the politicos and MOD as shiny new weapons. I watch the evolution of this Deep Recon Strike Bde with a sinking heart, fresh from the joys of FRES, off we go again with another oddball concept, which strips the field artillery from 3 Div, uses up a mass of arm recon regts needed elsewhere, posits interdicting a supine enemy with 2 understrength GMLRS regts and leads to.the field artillery of the future being… this weird, top-heavy Boxer 155mm, on a wheeled chassis that is inevitably tied to predictable and attritable road travel
Or we can rush off to invest in Dragonfly laser, which doesn’t look much cop even as a CIWS, or buy more low capability escorts. Really, anything that is not a very high priority. Nothing of course about grabbing some more Typhoons, seriously upgrading or replacing Watchkeeper, upping the NMH order to the necessary level, i.e. 60+ not 36-45, getting that 4th or 5th Wedgetail, etc, etc.
It is mass we are short of, we have most of the t3chnology, if in miniscule numbers.
Grrrr…
Well, we have the same issues in my country. War is looked upon from an industrial standpoint and from a technology standpoint, but not so Faten for what it is. The air, sea and land mass are lacking. It seems the defined purpose of the army does not really exists. Fight in the east: it is faraway. Fight for the Islands: perhaps. Fight for securing trade routes, yes and no. This is not a top priority. So… no mass, but we can sell weapons to whoever can afford them.
I agree totally. Of course leave decisions in the hands of politicians? Disasters ensue.
Consolidation in the defence sector has been going on for decades. Generally big companies acquire smaller ones. So the sheer scale of US defence production means US acquisition of foreign defence companies is likely, unless governments( with a deeper sense of national interest than ours) prevent it.
More worrying than ultimate ownership of companies is the loss of design and manufacturing capability. We can’t design and build new small arms, new naval guns will all be foreign designed and foreign built, future artillery guns will be German made. Where other countries in Europe have kept capabilities by state ownership or participation- Nexter, Fincantieri, DCNS, Navantia, Kongsberg, FNHerstal,- we happily encouraged consolidation in the private sector which was allowed to acquire state owned operations. With short term profits in mind, capabilities were closed down- small arms manufacturing, tank construction entirely gone, or substantially transferred abroad.
As far as combat aircraft are concerned, Britain has designed and built just one supersonic fighter by itself. That Sweden has built 3- Draken,Viggen, Gripen- shows what could have been achieved with clearer decision making. It is a difficult market. The US is still reliant on 50 year old designs and has produced just one new tactical aircraft this century- F35. The troubles of that programme have to be avoided if Tempest is to be a success.
But consolidation has not all been bad news. MBDA and the complex weapons programme has delivered missiles at least as capable as anything the US has.
For a country of Britain’s size and economy, we have to have a clear long term plan, ideally ensuring that existing equipment is maintained and upgraded to maximize service life. The failure to do this with Ch2, AS90 has almost certainly cost us more for fewer units.
Whilst politicians bear most of the responsibility for the poor state and scale of the armed forces, they have been abetted by senior service chiefs who have repeatedly failed to inject realism into defence planning.
So true. And this comes down to engineering skills, senior project management, credibility from the provider and the decision maker, so again and again, engineering and technicians knowing and caring about what they do, instead of just Excel sheet providers, who have for some time replaced reflection in many decision making centers. Finance and low technical knowledge have had an heavy cost on all aspects industries in previous years which were mostly centered on trade. Engineering culture must go back to senior position in administrations, so that Ajax, F35 or Louvoie (for France) kind of systems do not happen so often. Engineering, vision, expertise, all bad words since the 90’s, must come back in the payrolls and must be considered at their rightful place.
I can’t see governments giving up their national defence companies. While smaller companies have gone the main ones are unlikely to be allowed to merge without a massive list of conditions.
What can’t be forgotten is the large number of people these companies employ, the large amount of money that goes back to the government for every pound spent in a national company cannot be forgotten.
The skills and duel use of technology that feeds into other industries.
While tempest may be expensive it’s still cheaper than purchasing some aircraft from another country.
“Drones in Space.”
I think we’ve had those for a long time, and we’ve called them Satellites.
Amazingly the 1970’s Voyager probe still continues to report despite being outside the Solar system so good engineering does matter…
The Swedes seem to manage just fine.
So selling Volvo to CCP doesn’t matter….
Keith Hartley says: “Similarly, I think we’ll see more cooperation between national militaries. France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, has been talking recently about a more integrated European military, which makes sense because national markets in Europe and indeed Britain are so small. But I do despair of Europe ever getting its act together”.
I am not sure what he means by seeing more co-operation between national militaries (rather than Industries) and then contradictingly despairing of Europe getting its act together.
I do not despair of the several strands of cooperation between European militaries.
The EU conducts military operations and has done for many years.
The Eurocorps has been going for 32 years and initially reflected FR-GE cooperation – it is today composed of personnel from six framework nations and five associated nations.
The UK set up (in 2012) and leads the JEF which consists of the UK, the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden), the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), and the Netherlands.
The UK has collaborated with NL on various aspects of amphibiosity for decades.
The UK collaborates with Ireland on the defence of Irish airspace.
In addition there are multiple European industrial collaborations, too many to mention.
What nonsense. The defence industry is an extension of the Government. This will only happen if we lose control of the Government – which is more likely.
As annoying as BaE and Rolls-Royce can be, especially as they often have a stranglehold on indigenous options…
If any British government allows them to be bought up by a foreign entity, then those responsible should be strung up and the companies forceably taken into British ownership again.
I like the optimism that this will happen, when the date has been set not after the current election but the one after that, where all policticans involved will be long gone and there was no detail behind where the money will come from. Ironically still less than the amount under the last government.
it’s the ones using the industry that needs controlling
2.5% may increase forces suficiently for peacetime from the totally inadequate present. It will not prepare us for looming war.
Arguably Britain has already lost control of its defence industry. A vehicles are made By US and German companies with no UK R&D or IPR. Ditto Soft skinned vehicles and trucks. Rifles and weapons are being sourced offshore. Energetics are bought offshore. We are stopping steel manufacture in volume. Comms, sonar and avionics has been sold off to German, Italian, French companies. Large aircraft are sourced from Airbus or US. Helicopters US, The last company sell offs FR, Ultra etc were reviewed by none other than Kwasi Kwarteng who did zero to protect UK interests. Artillery manufacture has been destroyed on shore and we are buying offshore. BAE Warton are between projects and if Tempest doesn’t go, that will be ended/sold off. MBDA are competent but foreign suppliers refuse or delay integration of their products onto platforms F35, Apache are good examples. High cost drones have been given to General Atomics. Bridge building sold to Germany.
After destroying our sovereign capability, we publish a strategy on how we’re going to make in the UK when all the industry is foreign owned! and what was national government R&D has been sold off and now compete with manufacturers and privately owned developments have been moved offshore.
Just goes to show what thirty years of peace dividends and incompetence in HMG can achieve.
I have just returned from Normandy where I was asked (seriously) at Arromanche could we build a Mulberry Harbour today!!
Not sure wether this is the right platform for this, but it is i belive a concern !
A piece taken from the Gurdian on news feed.
Silkie Carlo, the director of Big Brother Watch, said it was ironic the new prime minister was suggesting a greater use of facial matching on the same day that an EU-wide law largely banning real-time surveillance technology came into force.
Who actualy wants this system in place and why ? 1% agenda maybe !
How will this effect armed service personel ? Wit Sec ? Intelligence working undercover ? Vunerable citizens, and most important nefairious hackers could use it to further their agenda.
Think our PM needs to think hard on this before he brings about something on the lines as a police state ! I think it would bring untold problems..riots ect !