The UK government has announced a thorough review of the nation’s defence capabilities, aiming to enhance security at home and strengthen its position abroad, according to a press release.
Commissioned by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and overseen by Defence Secretary John Healey, the Strategic Defence Review will be led by Lord Robertson, former Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary General.
This review is designed to address the urgent threats facing the UK, with work starting immediately and a report expected in the first half of 2025. The review will consult a wide range of stakeholders including serving military personnel, veterans, MPs, industry experts, and academia to ensure a comprehensive approach, as noted in the press release.
“At the start of a new era for Britain, we need a new era for defence. Hollowed-out armed forces, procurement waste and neglected morale cannot continue,” said Defence Secretary John Healey, quoted in the news release. “We need clearer accountability, faster delivery, less waste and better value for money.”
The review will be guided by three external reviewers: Lord Robertson, Dr Fiona Hill CMG (a foreign policy expert and former US presidential advisor), and General Sir Richard Barrons (former Commander Joint Forces Command and Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff). This team will be supported by a Defence Review Team comprising senior experts from both inside and outside the government, according to the press release.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer stressed the need for a robust approach to national defence: “We live in a more dangerous and volatile world. My government will forge a new clear-eyed approach to our national defences, equipping us to tackle international threats head-on while keeping the British people safe and secure.” Starmer added, “I promised the British people I would deliver the change needed to take our country forward, and I promised action not words.”
The review comes in the wake of global conflicts and rising threats, including the war in Ukraine and increasing tensions in the Middle East. It aims to assess the UK’s current defence capabilities, identify necessary upgrades, and ensure that Britain remains a leading force within NATO. This includes modernising the nuclear deterrent and enhancing cyber defence capabilities.
“Twenty-five years after the armed forces restructuring in 1998, it is an honour to lead a review overseen by John Healey, to help shape our military for the new century,” said Lead Reviewer Lord Robertson. “The world is a more dangerous place and to combat the evolving threat we need a new approach.”
The Strategic Defence Review will focus on several key areas:
- Enhancing UK homeland security.
- Bolstering Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression.
- Modernising and maintaining the nuclear deterrent.
- Adapting military services and equipment to meet contemporary needs.
- Driving the principle of “One Defence” to ensure integrated and efficient operations.
The review will also put a strong emphasis on the importance of personnel across the defence spectrum, ensuring their roles are central to future plans.
So it begins….
No sign of “forces too small” in their key areas.
I fear wholesale deletion of capabilities but hope for a realistic alternative of keeping what we have, with modest, or very modest, increases in key areas, helped by the improved procurement they mention and gradual budget uplifts.
Honestly, you think they are bringing back Lord Robertson former secretary general of NATO for a cut exercise?
You have been living under the Tory’s for too long.
Labours not looking for any cuts on defence, they already said they will raise the budget.
Well see. I’ll discuss with you next year when it reports. Raising the budget. This parliament? The next? Who knows until they work it out. What I’ll agree with is bringing Lord Robertson back, and also Dr Hill for a much needed US perspective. Seems like a good move. I’d settle for them dropping the waffle and committing to 5 things. 1.Reform recruitment, so AFCOs with military people in them, no Capita. 2. Remove pensions and put them in DWP. 3. Remove CASD capital cost back to where so many say where it came from until that bloody Osborne fiddled… Read more »
“Remove CASD capital cost back to where so many say where it came from”
Where do people say it came from?
Funding for CASD originally came directly from the Treasury, in 2010 George Osbourne moved the costs to the main Navy budget, throwing the RNs plans into disarray as they had to cut various programmes to cover the cost of CASD.
As the ultimate insurance policy for the country, I think it’s correct that CASD is paid for centrally by the Treasury rather than the RN operational budget, or the RN operational budget recieves an uplift from the Treasury to cover the additional cost.
Also to clarify, I think it is fine that the RN pays for operational costs of the 4 Subs and crews, AWE staff, and most infrastructure.
Not the construction of the boats, or even some eye watering costs of certain things at AWE that make it possible.
The only experience Osbourne had of the sea was a luxury yacht off Corfu or somewhere. No wonder he nearly destroyed the RN.
As Chris J says!
Remove CAPITA, are you crazy 😀
😜
Could not agree more..
Agree on the need to improve recruitment and retention. Moving pensions and CASD from the defence budget makes no difference at all unless the overall budget is increased. Most CASD costs are not in the core RN budget but in the DNO budget. Contracts are in place( or funding allocated) for the main programmes to re- equip the army: Ch3, Boxer, Boxer based SPG, Ajax. FOC by 2030 13 new frigates are contracted and should be in service by early 2030s. In addition the RN has included in its latest budget T83, T32, MRSS, MROS FADS though none of these… Read more »
“..It seems obvious to me that a further order of Typhoons should be a priority for any additional funding.”
Really, at this late stage of the Typhoon’s project lifetime! Unless the Saudi’s could sell us back the tranche 2’s cheap?
More F-35’s would be better value for money.
I have no doubt that money will increase since it is unsustainable such low level in face of USA and existing programmes like Tempest, F-35, more missiles, Type 26, carriers, SSN’s etc etc.
The question is even if that increase can accomplish what is being projected , not even new stuff.
Sorry Jim ,but this “raise the budget” is nonsense. They are not even saying they will match the Tories by getting to 2.5 per cent by 2030. “We will carry out a review to see what is required so that as and when the economy allows we will increase the defence budget to 2.5 per cent”…Starmer. He went on to say that he didn’t thinkk it would happen in Labour’s first term ie. the next five years. Having said all that I sincerely hope that Mr. Healey proves me wrong. 🙄
I think Lord Stevens is saying all the right things re being able to confront China, NK, Iran, Russia, and Healey has stated he did not come into the job to oversee cuts.
For all that, needs HMT to agree and for HMG to agree to the proposals Lord Stevens and General Barrons come up with.
That is not a given.
FFS Lord ROBERTSON!!!
Time, as always, will tell. I don’t remember the 1998 SDR as anything special. There were certainly cuts but compared to the last 25 years probably quite sane.
Well yes mate. Because after it, for a short time, we had 32 Escorts, 22 Fast Jet Sqns, and 12 SSN.
A force we can only dream of now.
Much of it was never funded that’s the problem, and the good work in the review betrayed further down the line.
I think politicians betraying us down the line would make a good national moto.😉
Hi DM. Do you have any insight as to what the % of GDP was require to maintain the ’98 force levels you referenced?
It would be really interesting to see if the MOD had better value for money then vs today.
Morning Chris. I’ve no idea on that mate, sorry.
What was special was that the 1998 SDR was FCO-led not Treasury-driven. As such it was very sane. Cuts were largely offset by new equipment orders.
That is a plus for sure. I would accept something fairly neutral if we got the mix right but I am hoping for more than that obviously. Perhaps we’ll get a happy new year!
Just re read SkyNews, Healey quote “I did not come into this job to cut numbers further”
This encourages me.
Sorry but if this Defence Review is anything like the 1998 one that Lord Robertson carried out it will mean one thing Cuts.
But numbers and capabilities are seperate things…
Oh gawd…your right. Politicians speak again. 😳
Cameron said he wanted to leave the EU, he was shell scocked with the referendum result. Labour now may feel they can talk up defence , wait until investment in renuable energy, nationalisin the railways and all the pie in the sky promises – They may not cut defence at once, they will be Cameron type reviews . Labour will cut anything they wish, to pay for their pie in the sky dreams.
Afternoon Daniele, Starmer does mention ‘hollowed out’ forces, so one might infer growth in terms of filling the void, OR, just change the threat and pretend China is not a threat…
Hi mate.
Yep, I’ll concede that and I found that encouraging.
But humour and forgive me, as we all know what every SDSR that has existed has meant, cuts. So I’m worried until proven wrong.
I’ve not read anything official, but Sky News also quoted Robertson as saying the UK needs to be able to face China, N Korea, as well as Russia, Iran, which is also encouraging and seems to acknowledge the RN actually exists!!
I know, it’s cr@p.
On the bright side(?) packed King’s speech apparently, so maybe interesting times at my new place, an optimism for the future.
I’d like to see a realisation that Trump is also a threat to our collective security and if he is elected, sod 2.5%, we need along with procurement reform and perhaps a way to change the officer stream so that officers might serve a longer period being responsible for a project. Thoughts?
Defo. Often highlighted here that they move on too soon, no continuity.
The Heritage Foundation organisation wrote the 900 page Project 2025 document to explain how they plan to collapse the three coequal branches of government to just an Executive that enables the wannabe dictator #45 to become king of America.
He’s already been clear that isolationists have no reason to fund NATO and Ukraine needs to give occupied land for peace with kaputin. The Crimlin says it’s going to plan.
Despite perceptions, Labour has generally been no worse than the Conservatives on defence spending. Our “hollowed out armed forces” are after 14 years of Tory PM’s. The SDR undertaken by Blair’s new Labour Government in 1997/8 was conducted on a cost neutral basis, by comparison the SDSR undertaken by Cameron’s new Tory-Lib coalition in 2010 was tasked with delivering a 10-20% real reduction in the defence budget. This proved impossible, but sadly you have to give the PM, Clegg and Fox full marks for effort – ruthless and almost immediate deep cuts to front-line capabilities resulted in a 8% reduction.
Agree, 2010 was awful.
this isong overdue maybe some radical things might come out of with maybe a gradual plan to! move the forces towards a more U.S marines like setup the merging of the special forces regiments and the fleet air arm with the RAF who knows. either way a more effective and better ran service is needed
Really could do much worse than model the USMC. Consistently punches above its weight class.
Only if we expect to fight as an adjunct of the US Army, which is why the Marines “punch above their weight.”
OMG. Seriously. Sounds like dithering to me. Get on with it. All we need is a load of focus groups & consulations.
Sounds like a proper defence review being conducted by non political experts.
What’s not to like.
Sounds like a millions times better than the sham of SDSR 2010 by the Tory’s and lib dems even through labour inherited a much worse financial position than 2010.
I do not seem to agree with you very much Jim but you are spot on here
That, I agree with.
A much worse financial position than in 2010? Are you suffering from amnesia? The financial crisis was the biggest peacetime threat to Britains economy. Brown had not only removed financial supervision from the BoE but had run growing deficits from 2000 onwards. Even though debt levels have risen to pay for COVID and subsidizing energy costs, there is no financial crisis. The 2010 defence review was indeed damaging, but the 1998 Labour review switched to an expeditionary role for which adequate funding was never provided. With equipment costs continuing to rise faster than inflation, any improvement in the UK armed… Read more »
Absolutely. The SDSR 97 was well thought out, but still resulted in cuts, no matter how you dress it up.
The “New Chapter” in 2004 finished things off nicely. 🙄
All reviews have the carrots dangled as the axe falls elsewhere, which is what is worrying me here.
Yes well we were in peace dividend territory still then. Now not so much.
Healey is on Radio 4 right now!
Any nice noises?
Sounds to me like a political review from beginning to end. Thay are making sounds although they might splash some cash but I am not sure people are going to be that impressed as to where it will be spent.
You do actually need to sit down and consult with people who know when your considering something very complex and important….you just get on with buying a tin of beans not looking at a root and branch review of the future defence of the nation.
Oddly I thought we did have such people who should know exactly what is needed, where the gaps are and have serious recommendations for moving forward. THE UK MILITARY. Are the Government simply going to ignore them and provide a political review. This could be a serious disaster.
And if you ask all of those experts, from the navy, airforce, army, industry, strategic think tanks, NATO, allied nations etc..surprisingly enough they will all come up with different views and have different parts of the picture…that’s why you have the review to bring all the expert thoughts together..looking at the individuals appointed to lead they have serous knowledge behind them…no reason to think this will be a disaster…the 2010 defence review was a disaster because it in no way looked at evolving threats..just savings that could be made moving the defence budget from 2.5% GDP to 2%…it’s been made… Read more »
👍Exactly!
A section of this review will have to await the US election result. One outcome will impact Ukraine first (although the country will go down slowly and painfully) and then Europe and will cost the whole continent a lot more. As indicated in Defence Analysis a quick review would likely be helpful, the issues are obvious and the way(s) ahead likely as well. I worry about the constant reference to 2.5%, 3.0% etc… The reality is you need to spend what you need to spend. The concern is you cannot ramp up quickly as in the past. Ships, tanks and… Read more »
Seems pointless to do a review before the November results are known. If the Donald comes in and pulls out of NATO then we are going to need massive expenditure on areas like nuclear weapons and space based infrastructure.
If the US holds the course and stays engaged in the western order then we will need more naval assets and China will be the longer term focus.
Not sure we have any interest in China, other than holding the US hand. It is hardly our backyard and is a distraction (that we cannot afford) compared to Europe and the North Atlantic.
As stated a US loss of interest in NATO will cost much of Europe a whole lot. I doubt we and Europe will be able to carry the UKR costs alone, then the Iron Curtain moves closer.
Nonsense. Last I remember we have interests around the Pacific. Austrailia, US, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc.
And our ability to protect those?
Lets be realistic, we can barely help cover the North Atlantic, Baltic and bits of Northern Europe.
The Far East is somewhere we can do no more than fly a flag, that will not help if people start shooting.
Honestly, no. We really should be contesting the Chinese colonial ambitions in Africa. But that’s a full spectrum economic, political and military contest, not something just for the MoD.
Agreed Dern – Chinese African ambitions are a major issue
Putin too. He is forming his Africa Corps to exploit the divisions in African society especially Christian vs Muslim. He consistently wraps himself in a false Christianity. Unfortunately ours has maybe gone off the rails too. Who am I to judge, but its a very dangerous and cruel game he’s embarked on. Let’s see where that gets him.
My understanding is that Robertson believes China to be the major threat to world order and western democracy. Like Lloyd Austin he sees China as the orchestrator and facilitator of a group of nations; Russia, Iran and N. Korea. I suspect this perspective will not change if Trump is elected.
China is constantly undermining us, stealing our technology and attacking regional partners.
Sod America, the UK need to call China out and smash her exports to us with high tariffs; we don’t need China earning ackers off us, sod ’em and their indoctrinated students who also commmit technology theft (and sod UK universities who abet such crimes).
China needs stopping.
The Royal Navy needs manpower, career streams, accommodation and a quadrupling of the available DD/FF force that can deploy in the Pacific to defend partner nations.
I wonder if moving between branches of the services is something that should be facilitated.
Just within Service Police… oh far too complicated, old chap.
Service Police should be purple and incorporate ModPlod with thoughts given to bringing MilInt into the equation to create a national armed and milint capable unit. Of course, they would all wear a red beret… 😉 . Voila, national gendarmerie.
It’s not the lasses and lads on the ground, it’s the admin hierarchy streamlining that creates savings.
I miss Airborne in these discussions and I’m sure farouk could add to the party.
This review does not report until first half of 2025.
The navies buggered then…let by a bloke they smashed to bits and once almost shuffled of with a land rover full of explosives, backed up by a general🤣😂 in all seriousness they have some serious people and knowledge heading this defence review, so to me that’s a good sign..these are not the people you would get in to do a 2010 style slash, burn and bugger the defence of the nation review. my finger in the wind what we could see: Navy…to few escorts and SSNs and a need to keep the ship building industry working well without costly gaps… Read more »
A good sound list. 👍 Might need to slip Mr Healey a copy? 😂. Especially like extra T31s, Ch3s and the comments on Boxer reductions.
Boxer reductions? What is the story?
Hi Graham, sorry, false alarm, I was just responding to one of Jonathan’s 🛒 list suggestions about getting less Boxer for more Ch3 and the Warrior upgrade… completely unofficial of course but we’re at the cutting edge here with our advice… Lol 😁
Hi Quentin, MoD has only ordered a mere 623 Boxers, yet funding was ringfenced for 1016, I think. Even that is fewer than are needed. Governments of various stripes have form in not buying enough equipment. Too few Warriors were procured in the 1980s, forcing the army to run on about 1,000 FV430 series vehicles. In Armoured Infantry battalions the very slow FV432 ambulances and mortar carriers could not keep pace with the Warrior IFVs. That issue is still the case some 40 years later! The Warrior upgrade is dead and buried, very sadly in my opinion. MoD announced in… Read more »
Thanks for all your detailed replies. They’re a good read on the historical background to current issues.
Hopefully with this new comprehensive defence review across all forces will truly bring out some good solutions and choices into making UK more fighting fit and secure alongside our allies and for all the people involved to have some sense urgency about it! It could be good for the UKs economy, employment and exports.
Thanks. I was disappointed that IR Refresh23 (and its associated DCP), which was meant to learn lessons from the war in Ukraine, but did not prompt an actual boost to defence expenditure, did not reverse the 10,000 established post cut to the army or suggest that more than 148 tanks were needed.
Here’s hoping this Review truly addresses the war in Europe.
Yes, got to hope the chosen people steering this review have enough smarts as well as humility to be open to listen to everyone across the military spectrum, and our allies for some honest feedback. They’ll likely get more respect and backing if they get this review right which is all good political capital. Hopefully it’ll lead to some good benefits for the UK economy, security, alliances and Forces morale!
🙂
Bye bye carriers
🤡 Another performance, for your masters in the Kremlin!
I think its important to work closely with the Spanish and Portugese. Reason being forward defence of the N Atlantic will become much more complex with possible Chinese expansion. To counter which maybe NATO’s boundaries should reach further. If we had 10 or 12 SSN’s and more MPA’s we could do a tremendous amount.
Don’t hold your breath. I doubt this will be a hundred day process. If decisions are made before next March they might impact next year’s budget. So I doubt they will be. The review will need an “expert” response from MOD and the military commands. Then the government will weigh in to say which recommendations they accept. Then plans will have to be formulated, both in MOD and Treasury, to action those recommendations, and only when all that is signed off will things actually happen.
Jon the military should be saying what they need first. Priorities need to be set.
The military won’t know first. Government Policy comes first, then the military react to it.
Well the policy should not shift much and should be pretty much the same from one Government to the next – but you are obviously correct. However once the policy is established and any changes made it will be for the military to state what they need to achieve those poiicy objectives & cost it. It is then a negotiation (in theory).
I think there is often quite a big difference between Labour and Conservative Governments on (Foreign &) Defence Policy. Tories favoured a tilt to the Asia-Pacific region and Labour seems to be far less interested. SDSRs tand to be very specific in how force levels will change – never heard of the idea of a negotiation after SDSR is published. Here is an extract from SDSR 2015: “4.33 Since 2010, we have restored our economic security and balanced the defence budget. We will continue to meet the NATO target to invest 2% of GDP on defence, which will allow us… Read more »
Yes the UK Defence Policy as detailed on the UK Parliament website talks about vague Government objectives like “Defending the UK & it’s interests against aggression etc.” without specifying how. Therefore the Government are giving the broad objectives, what we are defending & where, who we are working with etc. However in order to get to the SDR the military need to feed in their needs in terms of kit, people etc. which will be needed to meet the specified policy. Along with that will come costs and the politicians will need to be educated on what it takes to… Read more »
The SDR process of course involves the Review experts engaging with the military staff. But the military staff rarely win their arguments in the face of politicians and beancounters. Years back, the Navy required (not wanted, but required) 12 Type 45s – they got 6.
This ‘negotiation’ is thus one-sided and all takes place during the SDR process, not after the Report is published.
The SDR won’t need an expert response from the MoD – as it is an MoD exercise! The military commands won’t comment after publication – they are under command of MoD Head Office – but I hope they will have been consulted during the Review process. The Government won’t then weigh in because it is a Government Review. In many cases there will not be huge delay from publication to changes happening, especially any cuts. SDSR under Cameron reported on 19 Oct 2010 which advocated disposal of the Invincible class carriers and disposal of Harriers. Last flight of the Harrier… Read more »
Madness.
Dr Fiona Hill? You have to be kidding me. She is a John Bolton protege who turned against Donald Trump, testified against him at his impeachment hearings and later accused him of attempting a coup d’etat. Trump has described her as a “deep state stiff with a nice accent.” Whatever one’s opinion is of Trump, odds are he will be the next President of the United States. How tone deaf can you get?
Perhaps that the point, starmer does not do things by accident.
So she’s a person of honour then and isn’t in thrall to a Russian agent who is under the thumb of Putin.
Win, win I would have thought.
Well Starmer also choose Lammy too who said Trump was a nazi and kkk despite a Jew son in law he works with and decades of black business turned friends like for example Don King.
Of course reading the Guardian and seeing. listening to BBC don’t makes you very informed…they are activists.
Friends like Don King………
Whatever.
She is also a Russia expert.
I suspect that is through his wives past and present who were both of the wider Russian Orthodox faith. I’m not sure about connections beyond that. Its an interesting question and one that was a source of valid enquiry when he was President but got nowhere much.
I posted this on another page here but thought i give it another go I will probably be shot down for my comment but here goes The UK is an island and as such we have as of today a smallish army Please dont shout me down as my dad served in the DCLI from 1936 to 1953 and would no doubt knock my block off with what i am going to suggest Why not concentrate on the RAF and RN and let mainland Europe concentrate on the ground forces As people say we don’t have a lot of cash… Read more »
That’s pretty much been the strategy since SDSR 2015. Big draw down in the army, modest increases in the fleet size with RAF numbers kept steady.
RAF numbers kept steady? No mate, nowhere near. Not for fleet size either.
my ongoing gripe! 😪
It’s been said as well That most people would be content with a fully equipped Armoured division with another tank Regt and suitable artillery for it!
nobody sees another BAOR size army but at least let’s have one that works.
That doctrine is supported by many on this forum Barry, including me.
I do however believe that the Army still needs to be improved from its current state to 1 at least proper warfighting Division and all the other capabilities it has retained.
Yup. That’s about right. What numbers will the Army need to be restored to to achieve that? I tried to do the calculations but somewhere between roulement and figuring how 1 Div interacted with 3 Div during a war, my brain exploded and I gave up.
😃 With some shuffling of the deck chairs a 3rd Armoured Brigade can be formed in 3 Div without involving 1 Div too much. It is imperative, for me, that a Division should have THREE all arms manoeuvre Brigades, not 2!! The DRSB is not such a formation. Ideally it would be in addition to the 3 Brigades, but would actually need dismembering to achieve them. Which is ok, as it was a “merger” of 1 Art Bde and an 1 AI Bde. On personnel, I don’t know, I leave that to the real experts, but for me most of… Read more »
Effectively you have to strike 3 battalions from 1XX’s orbat for roulement, 1 of the RGR unit’s goes Brunei and then you need 2 Battalions for Cyprus. Assuming you take a battalion from 4 to make up 1 AI you end up with:
16X- 4 Infantry Battalions
7x- 1 Cav Regiment + 4 Infantry Battalions
4x- 1 Cav Regiment + 3 Infantry Battalions
Much more realistic Bdes than the current number of Bns in 7 and 4.
As I said, you have to remember that 7 and 4 include the Brunei and Cyprus garrisons, which make them seem larger than they are.
Give me 1 Armoured Division (1, 12, 20 + Fires) and 1 Mechanised Division (4, 7, 16) with ASOB please.
In a heart beat mate.
On “mechanized” is that Boxer all round?
Great fantasy, I’d jump at it but trying to be realistic I’d be happy with
Foxhound, some JLTV type and uplifts in fires to a wheeled 155mm.
CS CSS must come first though, as we know.
At this point I’d settle for an Armoured Division with 6 Battalions on Boxer, 3 Regiments of Challenger, 3 Regiments of Ajax and a divisional Recce Regiment, and a Mechanised Division consiting of Foxhound in 7 and a similar analog in 4, more would be nice but I doubt it’s on the cards.
Yep, very much liking this too. That’s 3 UK Div from 2010 but with Boxer rather than Warrior.
I was considering what you mentioned the other day re QOGLR becoming a CS Reg for the reconstituted Armd Bde.
Wouldn’t that leave 101 short of transport regiments? They have QOGLR and 27 if I recall. That’s the divisional level logistic force by my understanding.
Bit like the Polish or Canadian Armoured Divisions in WW2. We dont want 40 divisions on the Eastern Front or Western as it then was in 1914-18. Back to Artillery siege warfare again. The French and British Armies overwhelmed the Germans and out produced them 2:1. The Germans complained they never lost. Only a matter of time after they failed in March-June 1918.
Because doing so fractures NATO. It’s basicially us saying to Eastern Europe “You’re on your own, we’ll pootle about the north Atlantic. Have fun fighting Ivan.”
I think you have misinterpreted in what i was implying
We have the RAF to go to the front line plus what army we have will join the land forces
Then the RN will concentrate on the Atlantic and the GIUK gap
And by the way my names Barry not Ivan
Dern meant fighting Russia, so Ivan!
😆
This.
The Baltic States have only limited numbers of armed
forces, due to small population there.
👍Agreed, especially in reference to the Baltic States.
Lord Robertson is a decent chap. I was involved (in a very limited way) with the SDR 1998. Labour had a decent view of what was needed but financial reality kicked in.
Review priority one. Mass and numbers matter. Returning real strength and capability to the armed forces is vital. Emphasis of our security review shouldn’t be supporting Ukraine, although that is a vital national effort but we have to look beyond Ukraine and to the wider world. I agree about cutting waste and holding procurement failures to account. A simple uptick getting to 2.5% GDP to defence would ensure the armed forces are combat ready. Army: more archers, more MLRS, VAMTAC air defence and land Ceptor + direct energy and radar guided guns air defence systems. Boxer- an IFV version with… Read more »
That’s one hell of a 🛒 list Mr Bell! Reading it was like doing a workout!! If we can’t have all of it then some it at least! Let’s drink to that! 🥂 🍻 🇬🇧
Two elephants in the room, having read the key areas bullets at the foot of the article.
A final thought- if there is little or no prospect of a significant increase in funding, what is the point of a root and branch review? All that it might achieve is a re-arrangement, reducing some capability to increase another. It shouldn’t take more than a couple of weeks to complete the review since so much information is readily available in the published MOD 10 year plan. If you are already convinced that Britains armed forces are hollowed out, do something about it, now. But because the government is facing the the same financial limitations that constrained its predecessor, I… Read more »
Most persons want to justify their existence and their jobs, so they have to do appearance of work.
Hopefully they’ll get “real” with the review if there are further ‘”war clouds” on the horizon, with Russia in particular and the Iran, China, North Korea axis. If there were more ships available for Gulf maybe international freight wouldn’t be so limited and easily targetted. Why wasn’t this issue even dealt with much sooner?. Why not a order a few more GP/LA T31s and a pair of AAW T31s to the 🛒 list for delivery yesterday… asap. Lol 😁
Defence reviews seem to be like buses, none for a decade then three in quick succession. Like many others I’m dismayed at the year long timeframe. Months and months of essentially pointless meeting and consultations with CND, Greenpeace, Friends of Russia, The Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding, et al.. Surely Lord Robertson and his colleagues have the experience to identify the core issues after a handful of meetings over a couple of weeks with key government & military stakeholders, respected experts, recently retired senior officers, and senior industry leaders. Then a few weeks to read written submissions, develop recommendations and draft a report. … Read more »
1 year to write a report for publishing? How much will that cost. Surely there are already off the shelf anslysis of capability and requirements for each of the services. It’s not an investigation, it’s a strategic review of the world we are in and what our response to it.
I agree that it is far too long. All of the information is readily available by the Review team. A cynic might think that the only reason for such a long process, is that any jump to 2.5% can be delayed by a year!
Yes I think the same as you and I don’t consider myself a default cynic, it’s classic buy time strategy. Why does Lord Robertson and a team of underlings need to be paid for a year to write something that heads of our security agencies and defence chiefs can’t brief on right away.
When people are paying £60bn a year on something and they are told they need to spend substantially more, they need independent arse-cover before they even think about it. I’m disappointed that they can’t find £10bn extra to tide us over for the next 18 months while the review process is processing, but if they won’t, they won’t.
All the red flags from the new government in regards to our fiscal position being much worse than expected and despite that, a commitment to pay public sector workers an inflation busting pay rise at the cost of billions we don’t have, tells you all you need to know where defence spending will end up.
It all looks promising. However actions are louder than words!.