The UK has suspended its upcoming integrated defence review as the country battles coronavirus, Cabinet Office officials have announced.

“The Cabinet Office has informed the Defence Select Committee that work on the Integrated Review has been formally paused across Whitehall.”

View the letter from the Deputy National Security Adviser delaying the Integrated Review here.

“While the Review is paused, the Committee will also look at the Armed Forces’ contribution to fighting coronavirus and the long-term defence and security consequences of the pandemic.”

Chair of the Defence Committee, Tobias Ellwood MP, said:

“We welcome this delay of the Integrated Review. There would be no point in conducting an in-depth review of the nation’s defence and security challenges to an artificial deadline, especially at a time when Whitehall is rightly focusing on tackling coronavirus. We look forward to engaging with the Department when the Review restarts, with the added element of the consequences of the pandemic to be considered. We will still report in due course on the Committee’s inquiry into how Government should conduct the Review and hope that this work will inform the process in the future.”

The bulk of the review was due to be completed later this year but is now not expected to start until 2021.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
254 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
5 months ago

A-ha, the re-review starts!

Mark B
Mark B
5 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Disagree. Everything stops. Too busy.

Andy P
Andy P
5 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Yup, not surprisingly a few of us are cynical. It will give them time to ‘adjust’ the goal posts of the review so that its not as far from what the government are actually willing to spend on defence.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
5 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

Seems this one is first out of the blocks. We’re going to have to play fantasy fleet cuts on this site soon.
Regards

Andy P
Andy P
5 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

I hope we’re both wrong but I fear we might be right. I’ve read a lot of logic on here why we shouldn’t make cuts and can’t argue with them although its safe to say, we’re more defenco-centric on here. Unfortunately successive governments have seen the MOD as an easy target. It would be a ballsy government to cut NHS funding on the back of all this. Might it be possible that we actually see a Tory government put up taxes for the richer ???? The won’t want to hack off their new ‘prol’ voters. You would assume that HS2… Read more »

maurice10
maurice10
5 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

The truth of the matter is the review hasn’t paused it has come to an abrupt HALT! I hate to think what will come of the UK defence budgets once COVID-19 has abated?

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
5 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

Well, we’re told taxes could likely rise for most, and I’d suppose we’d have to see the validity of that. I’m consistent in my view that HS2 should proceed, though I’m aware there’s been some heated (too heated) disagreement on that here; we only debate. A fast, efficient, electrified national mass transit system is long overdue in the UK and does tick plenty of future boxes irrespective of more internet working, I feel. I note you don’t say cancelled in any case, but if Boris did prevaricate it would not come across as a positive. Also, what’s the cost in… Read more »

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago

Oh the military will have one sour backside after the shafting its going to get after all this is over. Say goodbye to all our tanks, LPD and perhaps a carrier. Hopefully we may just lose the deterrent. Certainly not ideal but if it maintaines our conventional forces.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Can’t see any of that doomsday scenario myself apart from possibly LPD, which have been on the chopping block for years.

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago

I do hope your right, ideally we have our own new deal moment and build enough kit to re equip the army 3 times over. But after just reading the 2010 SDR (for a uni project) I remembered how venerable military assets our to government thinking.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
5 months ago

Agreed, Daniele. America has perhaps more need for island hopping capability in the Pacific than we do. Only far north for us is a concern, but there may be other methods centred on the flexbility of both our carriers. Our job is surely to attempt control of the north Atlantic with CBG and Subs. Cannot see we’ll have enough units to adequately protect trade routes in any short term, so we’d have to rely on these two examples of a few but mightily powerful assets to hammer a foe from the start. What the politicians end up doing is another… Read more »

Trevor
Trevor
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Just leave it to the French then?
Just leave it to the French to have the Bomb?

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Trevor

Yeah

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Trevor

So when France can deploy an aircraft carrier with modern jets and 3 lpds, along with a major ground commitment in North Africa. We should be contempt in the knowledge that, while all our tanks and aircraft carriers with no dedicated air wing is sitting on the scrap heap, we still have a multi billion pound sub with one role taking up precious man power sailing silently in the ocean with a weapon that has never and will never be used and is unable to do anything short of the apocalypse?

Trevor Holcroft
Trevor Holcroft
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

You seem to be talking gibberish.

The point is if France can afford the nuclear deterrent, so can we. But as far as West Africa is concerned, they are only doing it because we are helping them.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/16/britain-prepares-send-military-helicopters-french-campaign-against/

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago

Correct!

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago

I’m well aware of the Chinooks in Mali but lets be honest there not exactly wining the war. Plus France can afford a dedicated carrier air wing, multiple flat tops, both a at see nuclear deterrent and air drop, 300 tanks and about 4 divisions worth of kit. All things we lag behind France, partly because, we out strip them in of areas. And I’d rather see us maintain those assists along with our limited conversational fighting force, if at the expense of a weapon system that is more then useless 90% of the time.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

We don’t lag anything behind the French, yes on paper they have slightly more numbers, but they can’t deploy it as effectively as we can, and sustain operations far from home like we can, they don’t have the strategic air mobility and ISTAR assets like we do, or a truly effective helicopter force. And a QE class with the F35 will be far more capable then the one unreliable French carrier with Rafael. The French have gone for numbers over quality, we have gone for capability over numbers, and capability and deployability keeps you at the top table. Lots of… Read more »

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

My argument isn’t that were worse or better then the French atm. My argument is that I’d rather see our conventional assets safe guarded at the cost of our nuclear deterrent in the coming budget cuts.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

I’d agree with that if it came to a choice between one or the other.

I’m a believer in both mind and I do not believe it will come to that.

George Amery
George Amery
5 months ago

Hi folks hope are all keeping well under current conditions. Fully agree Daniele. Let’s face it at the moment we are informed that there is simply suspended the review. Yes there may be some cuts to be made; however, on the whole I would think that most of our military will stay intact. Many if not all of the advanced developed nations that have a capable military as the UK has will be making similar adjustments to their defence spending in the aftermath of Covid19. There is of course a commitment of at least 2% GDP for defence, this will… Read more »

Matt C
Matt C
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Amateurs tactics, professionals logistics blah blah blah. If your precious Frenchys can do it all by themselves, well then go on, just take the Chinooks and go home. Since they have so many NH90s I’m sure they can deploy two to do the job of each Chinook. Eh? Many armies in the world have more men, vehicles, shooty bits etc. Only ten have the capability to utterly and unstoppably destroy a country no matter how mighty those men and vehicles are. That is a very mighty weapon, if you only know how to use it…. and yes, a deterrent is… Read more »

geoff
geoff
5 months ago
Reply to  Matt C

Well said Matt

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Matt C

Once again I’m not saying we our worse or better than the French. I believe we have multiple assets including the Chinooks that completely outstrip the French. However, i also belive that where about to see major cuts. And I’d rather see us maintain those areas of expertise and equipment that we actually use, if it means losing a weapon that exists only for prestige and is exceptionally vonrable. Fine we may save our nuclear weapons in the coming cuts, at the expense of our conventional forces, for what? For them to sit in a Submarine in the middle of… Read more »

TopBoy
TopBoy
5 months ago
Reply to  Matt C

Hear hear hear

Andy
Andy
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

The French armed forces are as strapped for cash as the uk armed forces, they are not replacing there carrier when it retires in 2027 .
There MBT is 90% inoperable, there fleet logistics are a joke and there onshore support is non existent.

Trust me the French armed forces are in a mess .

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Andy

once again. not concerned about the French, my point is if there’s cuts we should priorities our conventional force over the deterrent.

Stephen
Stephen
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

I disagree, the nuclear deterrent is essential. It stops the vast majority of potential aggressors from using a nuclear weapon on us knowing they would face the same in return. To get rid of it would leave us completely at the mercy of those with nuclear weapons, not a road we want to go down.

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Stephen

no it doesn’t. none Nuclear nations aren’t being blown of the face of the earth our they? no cause the political ramifications of using a nuclear weapon would be devastating to the user, especially given the fact the worlds economy’s our pretty much dependent on each over. that’s presuming that the country firing the missiles isn’t destroyed like the rest of the world by the proceeding nuclear winter and fallout.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

We will Not get a nuclear winter when using a nuclear air blast warpon!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
3 months ago
Reply to  Stephen

Stephen, which countries are going to use nuclear weapons on us and why? North Korea weapons and delivery missiles are under-developed and don’t have the range, also what motive would they have? Russia or China have too much to lose if they nuke us if we had got rid of our nuclear deterrent -US or France may nuke them in retaliation for attacking a NATO ally and they would be a pariah state incapable of doing world trade. Plenty of countries don’t have a nuclear deterrent and have not been nuked or even threatened with nuclear attack, including all but… Read more »

Andy
Andy
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

The deterrent costs £2 billion a year or 5% of the MoD budget . Getting rid of trident would have knock effects of maintenance of the RN SSN fleet . 4 less subs to maintain would lead to problems at Faslane and Barrow. Part of the reason for the Astute fiasco was because we delayed ordering a replacement for the Trafalgar class . Get rid of the deterrent and the dreadnought program stops leaving to gap between the dreadnought program and the astute replacement program. Basically cutting the deterrent would end the RN nuclear submarine program after the last astute… Read more »

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Andy

or continue manufacturing Astutes increasing the SSN fleet.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  Andy

“We need to stop gold plating everything”

Couldn’t agree more. We need a balance between quality and quantity. Which is why I support T31 and RB2 supplementing the T45 and T26 kept for their core tasks.

Steve R
Steve R
5 months ago

100% with you on that! Part of me thinks maybe we should cut the T26 numbers from 8 to 7, use the £2.5 billion saved (if we cut 2) to buy 5 more Type 31s (10 total) and then up-gun them, which could be done relatively cheaply. – 2 x quad canister launchers with 8 NSM/Harpoon Block II – Increase Sea Ceptor from 12 to 24 missiles, or even to 32. Even if it bumps up the per-ship price to £300million per ship that makes the total £1.75 billion for 5 additional plus upgunning the original planned 5, which also… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

Agree on all points Steve R.

I think reductions in T26 and F35 are a certainty. They are easy cuts, as they do not yet exist.

No need for 138 F35 in my opinion. Is 70, just 22 more, enough to surge a QEC or spilt between QE and POW if need be, while having aircraft for OCU, OEU, and a small reserve?

Can 6 T26 ensure 2 at any one time accompany a QEC when it sails?

Increase T31 at same time, along with more unmanned assets.

The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

The trident system is a deterrent it’s an insurance policy against , invasion , and subjection by a foreign power amongst other things and so no state can blackmail us that’s why we need it. I hate paying house and car and life and critical illness insurance but I recognise the prudence of having it just in case. I sleep safer knowing nobody will ever try to invade and destroy our nation as long as we have the bomb. That’s more important than sending tanks and assault ships to Africa

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago

No one is coming to invade us. No European power is interested, Russia hasn’t the ability and China is to far away. Having nuclear weapons is great for those ideas for the likes of India, Israel and North Korea but not for us. Plus China is getting more influence in the world and is continuing to antagonize America and the worlds because its footprint on the world, maintained by conventional forces, is ever increasing. Great China can’t bully us since we have a sub some where with a few missiles, while they have the ability to destroy the world. At… Read more »

Andy
Andy
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Why would China antagonist America?

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Andy

Because china is on its way to becoming the worlds dominating power, and knows it. Therefore it wants to demonstrate this to America and the world. By showing America up on the international stage.

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago

Nuclear weapons used to be the bench mark of leading nations in the 50s, 60s and 70s. But now since such great nations as Pakistain, India, Iran, North Korea and formerly South Africa, all nations that have a great and meaning full impact on the world, they don’t really seem like a good benchmark now.

Cam
Cam
5 months ago

Tridents not for incase of invasion! Its so we can strike back if a hostile nation like Russia or China uses nukes against us or NATO. Nothing more or less.

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Cam

Yes but a hostile nation won’t use nukes against us. And in the exceptionally unlikely scenario they use them against Asia then that America issue and if they use it against Europe. Then that the eu problem.

The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
5 months ago
Reply to  Cam

Sorry cam but I Think it serves for more than only a single scenario , it’s the ultimate deterrent a deterrent against a number of scenarios yes primarily against a nuclear first strike however if you think it’s not useful against deterring being invaded by conventional forces? History tells us there were millions of troops and thousands of tanks itching to come steam rolling across the west German border heading in our direction not but 40 years ago I’m pretty sure one of the main reasons they didn’t was nuclear. Yes being invaded is highly unlikely but does anyone know… Read more »

Stephen
Stephen
5 months ago

Exactly, no one has a crystal ball.

Paul T
Paul T
5 months ago

The Nuclear Deterrent wasn’t very effective in 1982 though – just saying.

Matt C
Matt C
5 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

Nuke bombs were brought along aboard Hermes FYI. would have been useful had the Argentinians escalated to total war. As it is, both countries abided by rules of limited conflict within the Geneva Conventions.

@Cam
Nukes are the ultimate force multiplier. Think about the ramifications of protecting 60 million people against enemies a dozen times larger if both have merely conventional weapons.

Pete
Pete
5 months ago
Reply to  Matt C

I would go an alternate route.. Fleet of 12 astutes. 3 or 4 at sea at one time. Each with conventional weapons in current mix other than as punchy a nuke on a son of tomahawk.

Split cash saved between covid recovery and convetional forces.

PRC will creep its way across asia. No one incident will merit nuclear Armageddon and conventional conflict is a more likely outcome.

Maintains abilty to make cost greater than the gain of attacking uk but maintains robust conventional posture… IMHO

Alternate will be 4 nuke subs and dads army

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

Because Argentina gamble that Britain would not use a nuclear weapon against a Non nnuclear power!

The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos Chicken
5 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

Totally different circumstances

Steve R
Steve R
5 months ago
Reply to  Cam

I don’t know; if we were being invaded and were losing then I could see us using them.

Our nukes should act as a deterrent to any fool considering it in the future, but if not then a nuclear strike would be effective: launch a single nuke at said country, let it hit and then threaten all out nuclear attack if they don’t abandon their invasion.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Cannot lose the deterent since it’s frighteningly clear it’s the ultimate insurance against peer state aggression, of which we have a couple of examples maturing nicely. The more you cut conventionally, the more your going to cross fingers and rely on Trident. Shame, Russia had the ideal opportunity to joint the family of Europe, etc (don’t mean EU) and, more importantly, I’d be more inclined to accept the chinese people if now was the natural time for China to become dominant (we all been there, from Italy and way earlier through to the USA today). But, for that acceptance, I’d… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

100% Correct!

Steve R
Steve R
5 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

I fully agree that we need our nuclear deterrent, and 4 submarines is the best way we can keep a continuous presence that is secure and can’t be taken out. However, I still lament the sheer cost of Dreadnought: £31billion for a class of submarines is ridiculous! I still think we should have built 4 subs based off a modified Astute design: Astutes but larger, with missile compartments, and then incorporate the new tech into it. Even if the cost per sub doubled we’d be looking at £12 billion for 4 ships (£3 billion per sub) plus then another couple… Read more »

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

Cannot fault what you say in essence, StR. How everything technical even got to be quoted in billions I’m sure most folks cannot fathom. After all, inflation within our everyday lives has not needed to proportionately increase anywhere near those figures or we’d all be receiving monthly wages in the millions with a single loaf coming in at around a £1000 quid, I imagine. That said, since a billion is the the new million, when you compare what equipment we get for our money we seem to stack reasonably against others. £3 billion for QE against $13 billion for a… Read more »

Steve R
Steve R
5 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Problem is that we have fallen into the trap of having everything gold plated and super shiny, forcing us to cut numbers to the point we have no depth to our forces. Had we gone the cheaper route such as I described, we would have £15 billion or so saved that could be used to grow the fleet significantly. – Increase the frigate & destroyer fleet from 19 to 30. – Increase the frigate and destroyer fleet to 25 and increase the Astute fleet from 7 to 10. – Increase the frigate and destroyer fleet to 24, add an 8th… Read more »

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

Can you confirm that you are comparing like with like on current estimates, StR? The Astute cost looks similar to their initial outlay, doubled for inflation/complexity. The only £31 billion I can see in regard to the Dreadnoughts is current lifetime cost; ok, of necessity a gestimate. But compare that to the earlier through life estimate for the Vanguards which was around £15 billion, maybe i.e. one from the past the other into the future.
Regards

dave12
dave12
5 months ago

Cuts Cuts and more Cuts , and one carrier sold off call me cynical but I can see it happening.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  dave12

Sold off to who?

dave12
dave12
5 months ago

That is a good point who ,maybe India or Eygpt possibly Turkey.

dave12
dave12
5 months ago
Reply to  dave12

*Egypt

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  dave12

So India will buy F35 to operate from it? Or Egypt and Turkey?

How much would cutting a carrier save? When billions have been spent?

dave12
dave12
5 months ago

Yep good Point but we did scrap our fleet air arm and nearly cut in half our army numbers in the last recession,nothing is impossible but ye I would go with what Julian1 said below now, POW will most likely bee mothballed for a long time.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  dave12

I think the two Carriers will remain as is now. 1 in service. 1 in reserve.

dave12
dave12
5 months ago

I’m just hoping maybe wishful thinking that the forces are ring fenced as they are cut to the bone already and now we are out of the EU I was hoping we would have the sense to expand.

John Stevens
John Stevens
5 months ago

Agree with Daniele.. I think the UK will keep both carriers. When it comes to a defence review.. That’s not such a bad idea, if it really is a wider review of defence and foreign policy so on.. But we will have to wait and see about that one. But I tend to agree with Daniele that most of our capabilities will stay intact. Hope so anyway, fingers crossed !!!
Keep safe guys

Cam
Cam
5 months ago
Reply to  dave12

Fleet air arm wasn’t scrapped only harrier. And we’ve spent so much and scrapped so many so we can have two carriers. We must be getting on to a decent squadron number with the F35s.

Paul T
Paul T
5 months ago

Daniele- As far as Cuts go the Sums never add up – its more to do with sacrifice and symbolism for the common good ,but with only 2% to play with maybe the people making the decisions will find bigger Fish to Fry for a change.

Trevor
Trevor
5 months ago

Turkey are not buying any F35s are they.

julian1
julian1
5 months ago
Reply to  dave12

No, wrong list. Turkey isn’t allowed to buy F35 so that rules them out, Egypt bought the Mistral class ordered by the Russians, can’t see them taking a strike carrier – they couldn’t afford it anyway. India is building its own carriers and again, would have to operate F35B. For me, more likely Australia. But perhaps nobody and one will just be mothballed.

dave12
dave12
5 months ago
Reply to  julian1

Fair point.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  julian1

Exactly.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  julian1

Also India is struggling to afford to procure enough jets for their present carriers!

Waddi
Waddi
5 months ago
Reply to  julian1

Lots of special US communications kit in the Carriers, allegedly a whole room dedicated to it. That may limit who can actually buy. My guess is PoW is offered to the US to cover their potential gap in carrier availability. The USMC could put a whole F35B air wing on it leaving a Wasp(s) to be heli only, would fit nicely with their new strategy?

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Waddi

The US is in same situation as the UK, just spent over $2 trillion on bailouts!

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Waddi

That was the propose of to have two carriers, if one is in maintenance with crew leave or workup training etc. One will be available to deploy.

Julian1
Julian1
5 months ago
Reply to  Waddi

Yes, possible, they have the crews and aircraft already. If they got one at a good price why not? Would not be a big deal to them. Whilst Trump is President they won’t be reducing defence expenditure even if they are up to their eyeballs in debt

Cam
Cam
5 months ago
Reply to  julian1

Spanish or italians? Scrap small for bigger?

Julian1
Julian1
5 months ago
Reply to  Cam

No, they will have the same debt as UK, they would not be able to afford to run or arm them. Also, overkill to paddle around the med, which is all they do

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  dave12

All those countries you listed are in a much Worse state financially and their political stability in question.

Trevor
Trevor
5 months ago
Reply to  dave12

They have loads of money do they?

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago

the scrap merchant.

Andy
Andy
5 months ago

If we are selling the Crown Jewels because of the crisis which country is increasing military spending?

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
5 months ago
Reply to  dave12

Absolutely. Capital Projects will get targeted. Read fewer F-35B’s, lose a carrier, lose the Chally LEP altogether, 2 fewer Type 26 with an additional 2 T31… It’s going to be a complete shit show.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

As I have said before, cutting spending in a recession just makes it worse and lasts longer then necessary.
Please read up about Keynesianism.

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

I don’t need to read up on anything as my above comment was not a wish list, nor was it a preference.

It was an observation, and one that I would fervently argue against.

Just because it appears to be strategic madness, does not mean the UK Government will refrain from carrying it out. UK defence has been a sacrificial lambs for decades.

JohnHartley
JohnHartley
5 months ago

A rock & a hard place. That will be the situation HMG finds itself in. The longer the lockdown goes on, the more UK firms will fail, the higher the unemployment & welfare payments, all while the tax base collapses. Since 1990, Defence has been the go to for politicians to raid for cash to get them out of trouble somewhere else. Trouble is, they will need far more than the defence budget this time. Oh & the fallout in relations between nations over C-19, is likely to make the world more unstable. When the next British flagged merchant ship… Read more »

julian1
julian1
5 months ago
Reply to  JohnHartley

do we not think the whole world will be affected to a greater/lessor degree? Certainly the world’s wealthiest nations have been hit the hardest. More unstable yes, but surely everybody with reduced budgets

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  JohnHartley

Which is exactly why I suggest the doom merchants gathering over the UK military’s corpse may not quite be correct. The world will be in this situation. Stripping ourselves naked will not help and the savings on running costs are how much? Pittance to what has been borrowed. Just looking at Rfn Westons list above as examples: Fewer F35B. Well, there are people here still wanting 138! They don’t even exit yet. I’m happy with a paltry 22 more to get to 70. That saves billions at a stroke. We only operate 1 carrier in role at a time. That… Read more »

JohnHartley
JohnHartley
5 months ago

I suspect globalisation will lose its charm, so Countries will favour their domestic industry over foreign imports. So anything made in the UK, employing UK workers & thus contributing to the tax base, will probably be prioritised. However, we have a London centric, elite, aloof, adrift, clueless governing class, so doubtless they will favour cheap, sub standard Chinese imports, rather than give dignity & a living wage to UK workers outside the M25.

julian1
julian1
5 months ago
Reply to  JohnHartley

I think there is an established culture now of giving up domestic/sovereign capability of producing something to get it as cheap as possible elsewhere, it will be hard to reverse it, though clearly PPE, Huawei controversy, vaccine production may prove to break that rule. Will we manufacture clothes again? not sure about that! Since UK High Street chains are rapidly dwindling, perhaps people will pay more for less but better quality and longer lasting. Perhaps the Lancashire Milltowns will have a renaissance!

Steve R
Steve R
5 months ago
Reply to  julian1

Might well happen. If we were to restart our own clothes manufacturing again it would be a lot more reliant on automation and machines than, say, China or Indonesia who can cheaply have 1,000 people working in a textile mill.

Trevor
Trevor
5 months ago

Spending on defence is a relatively easy way to keep us our of a recession.
This is not the financial crash. The banks have money and govt can spend and lend.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
5 months ago
Reply to  Trevor

It is never ever as simple as that though is it. At some point, all the borrowed money has to be paid back. Nothing is for free.

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  Trevor

How would spending on defence keep us out of a recession easily?

And the government did spend during the financial crash

julian1
julian1
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

it keeps industries/supply chains producing and innovation happening. 100s of 1000s stay in work and pay taxes, benefits and social care costs are less. I would rather pay to produce for the country now rather than suffer social deprivation/lost generations as we did in the 80s. Not just military, but civil engineering, housebuilding etc. Be careful to spread the cost around sectors and country to benefit all in some way and no outrageously expensive individual projects such as HS2

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  julian1

Yeah I understand that, that’s pretty obvious it does that but never in a million years would it keep us out of a recession like Trevor said

Construction & civil engineering are pretty small parts of our economy, you could double spending in those areas and still suffer a terrible recession

JohnHartley
JohnHartley
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

I see the Japanese government has announced a billion pound pot from which to offer grants to firms to bring back manufacturing from China to Japan. If Japan can have a reshoring grant fund, why is it beyond the British Government to do the same?

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
5 months ago
Reply to  Trevor

Only if the money is spent in the uk

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  JohnHartley

Yes, 100% correct!

Rob
Rob
5 months ago

I can see a very busy time for the Armed Forces ahead. When / if we get the virus here under control it is going to inevitably spread to the third world and they are even less prepared or equipped to deal with it than we were. Can see those field hospitals being taken down here and deployed across the Commonwealth – South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria. As for the defence review, look if anything what is going on at the moment just shows how important having capable Armed Forces are. We will have to save money but the Government must… Read more »

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
5 months ago
Reply to  Rob

Finally might provide the Impetus to greenlight those Hospital Ships from the aid budget.

Rentaghost
Rentaghost
5 months ago

It’s an interesting one. In some respects I’m not sure the Covid-19 outbreak would change the direction of the defence review massively. For the Navy, the RM was already committed to the Future Commando Force, which, emphasised a return to commando style raiding and a re-roling of that force as a kind of special forces minus outfit. Bear in mind that the US Marinescare are already (controversially) pivoting away from heavy amphibious operations to a lighter, long range fires deployed infantry force, using dispersed shipping rather than a few big platforms. So probably the Bulwark and Albion were already on… Read more »

Jonny
Jonny
5 months ago

Goodbye military, I guess this was to be expected anyway…

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  Jonny

🙄

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Jonny

It just shows you have not get a Clue of the state of the rest of the world economies are in
compared to the UK. It is far more likely increased milltary spending will be needed, due to the stability of other countries, e.g. more Syria’s.

Jonny
Jonny
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

I hope you’re right, but you know what the government’s like

Mark B
Mark B
5 months ago

Good grief you are all a bunch of doom merchants! The lesson to be learnt from Covid is if you do something do it well or not at all! I suspect they are busy planning serious improvements to the NHS. A military review can wait! When they get back to the Defence review then the same philosophy will apply. Cutting costs in the military would be a waste of space and be no where near enough. We need to be able to defend this country – no ifs or buts – in an affordable manner. Vanity projects will be dead.… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

Bravo. Another member of the reason club.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago

Another Troll, more like it!

Mark B
Mark B
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

😊 Never been described as a troll before – well there is a first for everything!

Personally I have read & digested your comments and find myself in agreement with many if not most of them.

Alternate strategies or thinking out of the box comes hard to many in Governments unless they are “between a rock and a hard place” in which case it becomes the only sensible course of action.

It is at this point that we find out if the current PM is another Winston Churchill or a John Major (no offence).

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

Sorry, I didn’t mean you!

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

So what vanity projects will be cut then, the carriers we’ve wasted billions on?

Mark B
Mark B
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Not quite sure what you have against the carriers? They are not necessarily useful in every scenario but they (in my view) give a solid backbone to the RN.

We need to just make sure that every piece of kit we order from now on doesn’t cost the earth, arrives quickly, in sufficient numbers and is deadly enough to strike fear into the eyes of potential enemies.

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

Oh no i love the carriers them selves. however, a carrier needs more then itself to be a useful weapon, and I don’t think we’ve fully funded that. It’s like having a large tank force but no reconisance vehicles, infantry, artillery, recovery vehicles and has to share its gun with another force. Looks great for the publicity photos but not much else.

Mark B
Mark B
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

I agree. The weapon is a carrier strike group including everything that supports it. What you are talking about, just to make it topical is the PPE of a tank force or a carrier strike group. Our leaders are beginning to understand the issue of not having all the necessary parts, in sufficient quantity and quality and/or being able to manufacture replacements as necessary. The Government will either learn from the mistakes of the past or not. I think the public have and I would be surprised if it didn’t turn into a hot political topic. If this Govt have… Read more »

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Mark B

hopefully your right.

Mark B
Mark B
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

We live in hope Harry 😊

Steve R
Steve R
5 months ago

To be honest I don’t believe the defence budget will be cut. It already has been to the bone and any further cuts will not only castrate our armed forces but will also kill off our defence industry.

I don’t think we will see cuts, but likewise we can probably kiss goodbye to any planned increases in defence spending.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

At last, some more posters talking sense again!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

Agree! Maintain and make minor improvements where possible.

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

Problem is the government doesn’t talk scenes. Just ask 2010 sdr.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

in 2010 there was a 25 billion black hole in the defence budget, and the MOD had to contribute towards getting the deficit under control. They don’t make big cuts just for the fun of it.

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Yeah but the happily cut it stuff back simply cause we didn’t need it there and then. With little thought of the future.

Steve R
Steve R
5 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

No but George Osborne does.

The reason for that black hole is that he slashed defence spending to the bone.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

That black hole was there well before the coalition government won in 2010. Tony Blair liked going to war, but he didn’t like paying for it

Steve R
Steve R
5 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Good point.

I may be wrong but I always assumed that was Gordon Brown’s doing. He opposed the Iraq War and as chancellor was in a position to withhold additional funding.

Steve R
Steve R
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

True but Johnson and Sunak seem to be more generous with the purse strings than Cameron and Osborne. The main reason Rishi Sunak is in his current role is that Sajid Javid wasn’t willing to spend the money Boris wanted him to.

Frank62
Frank62
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

Most likely, but the whole of defense is traumatised by decades of irresponsible cuts. We’re already reaping the folly of excessively cutting NHS budgets, but the payback for cutting defense could be catastrophic in a whole new league.
But no stupidity would surprise me after the last 20 years.

Mark F
Mark F
5 months ago

Lets just remember that it is not only the uk suffering it’s a global pandemic.
There is a recognised threat to uk interests as acknowledged by uk Gov. The world will be a different place after the end of this pandemic, quit how it will look is anyone’s guess.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
5 months ago

As I wrote on another thread I think the only way out of the economic mess that Covid-19 is inflicting on us as a country and on the world in general is to invest. What we need is a Roosevelt style New Deal and in fact I just caught some politician or other using that very phrase today as I turned on the TV. Also, Boris is on the record saying that he wants the UK to lead a new Green Industrial Revolution, so bring it on. Push HS2 to John O’Groats if necessary, install electric infrastructure including onshore wind… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
5 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I would broadly agree, we need to really push economic regeneration hard. I absolutely agreed with austerity in 2010, it was hard, but we needed to bring the debt down …. However the debt after this will be absolutely staggering, beyond our capacity to recover from via simply cutting back. At least everyone else’s economy is also 10 plus% down, so we should broadly keep our place in the world economic league…. It will take 100 years to pay it down, so we have to go full steam ahead with solid economic growth. I think pausing and tweaking our defence… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

John the debt has gone up every year since 2010, austerity was never a necessity it was an ideological political choice taken on bad advise from the IMF which the IMF later apologised for

The country lost billions in lost economic growth because of austerity, that’s why you will definitely not hear one conservative MP call for it after this, because it failed

John Clark
John Clark
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

Morning Sole, I don’t think that’s case to be honest. We did bring down structural debt, the interest we had to pay on Labours great balls up would have meant our grandchildren would have been paying the price … But that’s all totally irrelevant now! It’s going to be so ‘massive’ after this disaster, investment in and supercharging our economy has to be the priority and the only possible way out of it. Every major economy in the world will be in the same boat. Thank god we god out of the EU, or we would also need to put… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

Morning We brought down the structural deficit, our debt has not gone down a penny though since 2010 You can’t really say during one recession we have to spend and then justifying the last recession with austerity, if austerity worked then why aren’t we doing it again, honesty read up on what the IMF and other economists & governments have said about austerity, it was a disaster and was stopped after a couple of years, as soon as we stopped cutting our economy was the fastest growing in the G8 for a while Labour messed up with some things during… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

We could argue about the last debt all day sole, you could say labour bet the farm on continued economic growth forever more and borrowed massively taking a gamble that growth of the world economy would continue, UK debt was already out of control before the economic crisis of 2008 unfortunately. Gordon was caught with his pants down and empty coffers when the sticky stuff hit the fan world wide…. Still, moving on, you ask why austerity (by the way, we still spent “way more” year on year than we earnt as a country during austerity) won’t work this time,… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

It wasn’t at all John, the debt under Labour before the financial crash was never more than the total debt it inherited in 1997, I’m not sure where you’re getting this from, I assume it’s the media because every history of UK debt graph you look at will show you that the debt under Labour was never out of control Continued economic growth is what the global financial system needs, it’s what it relies on, that’s one of the reasons it’s flawed but that’s another story, but even having said that Labour never borrowed strictly for economic growth, most of… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

Fact is Sole, UK national debt doubled from 1997 to 2010. Debt has to be paid back, we cant run our economy like a teenager with a credit card! This massive borrowing has to be paid for, the more we borrow, the more interest we have to pay back, until we reach a position that it never can be. Until we have to of coarse! Now I will freely admit we have zero choice but to fully commit to national credit card gambling. We as a country, are like a house in negative equity, so we might as well get… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

Dont forget that the Bank of England has started buying back government stock, so the interest is paid to BoE.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

Yes, I think you are right, the British economy was growing again in 2010, then the new Gov. put up VAT!

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

I think, if Labour had been re-elected in 2010, they would have let the economy grow a bit and put up taxes later gradually.

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
5 months ago

Overseas aid should either be cancelled or subsumed entirely in the defence budget…also the NHS is not efficient. Singapore spends half of what we do on their health service and get much better outputs…clearly it has overpaid managers, clerical staff and outdated procurement processes. Time for us to look carefully at the whole of the government budget to see where the fat can be trimmed.

Ethan
Ethan
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Singapore has a population of just over 5 million. That works out to a lot more spending on health per capita than the UK.

Stephen
Stephen
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

“foreign aid” must be the first thing to be cut at a time like this, and cut hard.

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  Stephen

I emailed my new Tory MP and told him at a time like this we should increase international development aid to show the world we can still make a big difference, keep making friends & contacts, and keep our spot as a soft power superpower firmly in place by investing and helping around the world

I also asked if it can have a name change to the “giving a load of free money to foreigners department” just so I can get the popcorn out and watch your head explode Stephen

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

Why are you on this defence journal thread? I mean seriously why are you? If you want to post this stuff you can at the graun but on here you just make yourself out to be a moron “solesurvivor”. It’s perfectly fine to have these views but saying on this thread just isn’t appropriate….the defence budget is under stress and the overseas aid budget is badly spent on foreign dictators with swiss bank accounts. As one expert in aid said that aid itself took from the poor in rich countries to give to the rich in poor countries. Overseas aid… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Oh shut up you snowflake I’m winding him up, why are you on this thread “Peter Shaw” because you obviously haven’t been on this site long enough to know I have been winding Stephen up about international development aid for years But let me reply to the rest of your dribble anyway “It’s perfectly fine to have these views but saying on this thread is inappropriate” Say what? So people are allowed to say we should cut international development aid but people are not allowed to say we shouldn’t as it’s inappropriate? What sort of debate is that where one… Read more »

Stephen
Stephen
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

Nice try SoleSurvivor, I’m not biting though!

Seriously though, at a time like this foreign aid must be cut, not completely gotten rid of, but yes, cut.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

I’m 100% with Sole. I too used to lament the amount spent but I have realised I was wrong, in part by Soles many explanations here over the years. The money could certainly be better spent at times, but soft power has it’s place alongside military and economic power to put the UK firmly on the world map as a major player. And I’m no Guardian reader. I do believe some of that DFID money could align closer to the MoD budget in providing support vessels with utility for both aid and a warm role, and I would like to… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago

Warm role! War role!

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
5 months ago

The UK currently has 87.5% of GDP UK government debt which is one of the higest in the developed world. After the corona virus this is likely to go beyond 100% of GDP. Then there is private debt in the UK which is around 200% of GDP. We currently borrow from the international markets via the issuance of gilts to provide 0.7% of GDP to third world dictators or a third of our entire defence budget. This is £14 Billion every year of borrowed money. I think disaster aid relief is fine but giving out a fixed amount every year… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Pete it’s here to stay mate, just get on board, the tories can’t get enough of DfiD and Labour would never dream of getting rid of it, so it will always, always be here Pete Hopefully we get a strong bounce after all this is done and when we are well on the right track again we can start thinking about getting rid of the 0.7% of GDP written into law for aid spent, just incase some years we are feeling extra generous and we can drop a lovely British 1% GDP aid bomb around the world like the Swedes… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago

Cheers Daniele Yeah and I agree with that, like every government department there is some wastage, but it is always small compared to the budget as a whole but does tend to be the kind of wastage that creates headlines But you may have noticed those stories seem to be ancient history now, as a Labour voter I have to tip my hat at how the tories have transformed the DfiD, and I think they had to because of public opinion on it but they have done a good job so far, you should read some of the IFS reports… Read more »

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

Where to start with your inaccuracies. The UK is one of the highest spenders in the western world on aid. It’s approximately just over one third of the defence budget. Soft power is unquantifible in terms of its benefits back to the UK but numerous international studies have demonstrated that overseas aid entrenches the abuse of power by third world dictators. Also we still send money to both India and China (how is this soft power). You seem quite soft in the head and lacking intelligence or the ability scrutinise things objectively. I’m sure if it were down to you… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

“Where to start with your inaccuracies” I know we are one of the highest spenders on aid, third in money and fifth in percentage of GDP, which is not the most, that would be the USA & China, the two global superpowers that spend the highest on aid, followed by ourselves and the usual suspects of Germany, France, Japan etc, if that’s not a clue to why scrapping it would be one of the most stupid decisions ever then maybe it’s you lacking intelligence “Soft power is unquantifible in terms of its benefits back to the UK” You don’t think… Read more »

Stephen
Stephen
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

It will always be there for sure SoleSurvivor, no one is arguing about that. At a time like this when we are looking for cuts though, yes it will have to be cut (along with other things).

At the end of the day, that is our hard earned tax money that is being given away, our money that could easily be spent in our own country. At a time like this it will definitely have to be cut (along with other things).

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
5 months ago
Reply to  Stephen

Totally agree with you Stephen…it’s inevitable especially once the depression hits after the end of the Covi pandemic. Wait until the working class and lower middle classes start losing their jobs and then the overseas aid budget will become an obvious target for savings.

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

Sole we probably don’t see eye to eye on about 50% of subjects but I love the cut of your jib……is that the right saying! Your explanations and arguments are all knowledge and research based, with a thin slice of sensible socialism and a smattering of “shit happens/can’t/never changes” experience! Keep it up.

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

When you think about UK overseas aid remember our largest aid recipient is Pakistan that hid Osama Bin Laden for many years and has funded and trained Islamic extremists and has most of the Madrasses that brainwashed Muslim British people. They have a nuclear weapons programme as well which destablises the India sub-continent and could eventually lead to nuclear exchange with India over the disputed region of Kashmir. We spend just over £0.42 billion of our aid budget on Pakistan….tell me the tangible soft power benefits we have received?

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Peter having lived and worked in that region, for a number of years, I am fully aware of Pakistan, it’s issues and attitude thanks. Like any large budget, some is wasted, some is useful, and the aid budget is no different. However in the big scheme of things it is more useful to a global Britain, in regard to soft power concept, to have this aid budget available.

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

It’s a very glib response to questions I raised about Pakistan’s intimate relationship with Islamic extremists and also their large nuclear weapons programme. If you look at our aid budget contributions they are essentially using our money indirectly to fund these activities as if we didn’t give aid they would have to spend more money on schools, hospitals etc and wouldn’t have that much money to spend on weapons and terrorism. In addition if we did trade not aid it would provide a better way of democratising these medieval societies. Look at what happened to the evil empire of the… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Glib response, really?

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Yes glib response..we clearly differ in our views..let’s agree to disagree…You won’t convince me as you have no evidence and I won’t convince you because you dogmatically believe in this cult of overseas aid.

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

I wasn’t trying to convince you, posted my opinion. And I love the presumption of the “dogmatic belief” I have in overseas aid. Damn.

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

It’s good we at least agreed on one thing….agree to disagree…

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

“Look at what happened to the evil empire of the USSR…they eventually became bankrupt as they were cut off from trade”

Where have you got that from? The USSR traded with the west through the entire Cold War, they were never cut off, they exported raw materials and fuel and then imported agricultural products, trade with the west increased throughout the 70’s, we always traded with them

Peter you’re talking complete and utter garbage now, your “trade not aid” dogmatic viewpoint is based on a misconception, well to put it bluntly it’s based on bull***t

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Pakistan is a strategic target for UK aid, 300 million or so gets spent, and a tiny fraction of that is on humanitarian aid, the rest is strategic spend like health, education, and most importantly security, security in the sense of improving the Pakistan civilian capacity to prosecute terrorists under international standards, and of course the health and education making young Pakistanis have a favourable view of Britain, sort of the only defence we have to stop young people abroad getting radicalised and wanting to harm our civilians That’s soft power in a nutshell, have you understood it yet? Everyone… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Haha yeah it’s a Scottish saying not heard that in years

Nice one mate I like to call it sexy socialism

👍

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

There are only five countries that exceeded the UK’s 0.7% of GDP spend on aid which are (2015 figures): Denmark (0.85%), the Netherlands (0.75%), Norway (1.05%), Luxembourg (0.95%) and Sweden (1.4%). The UK does still spend aid money in China and India which are now emerging superowers. We have elderly and young living in poverty in the UK and you claim that this spend on overseas aid is value for money. Again you don’t actually quantify tangible measureable benefits. DFID has received poor ratings almost every year since it was formed as a department in terms of wasted money. The… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Peter you’re ignoring everything that has been said to you “Again you don’t actually quantify tangible measureable benefits” How is increased exports, increased UK jobs and increased tourism not a benefit, listen to what’s being said to you Trade not aid, Russia and China cannot be compared to African countries, they’re completely different and it’s simple to say oh well trade took millions out of poverty in China so why can’t it do it in Africa, there are a number of factors involved why it isn’t that simple What third world dictators got money out of last years aid budget… Read more »

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

As an aside I wouldn’t have mentioned Oxfam….not a good example with what some of the charity workers did in young girls in Haiti…a prime example of our “soft” power I guess….I have friends from Haiti and they can tell you lots of horror stories about British aid workers….and what they did to incredible young girls….so not a good example there of that soft power you talk about…

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Oxfam? Schools, police, every Religious organisation in the world, charities, armed forces, governments, music industry, tv industry, film industry, sports institution’s, you would be hard pressed to find an organisation that has not been infiltrated and used by criminals of the very worst kind That does not mean you totally discredit it as it’s usually not their fault, it’s the persons actions fault, should we abolish the royal family over Prince Andrew, the next time a member of the armed forces commits a crime should we get rid? No we shouldn’t and it’s further proof of your simple/narrow minded black… Read more »

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

Ah resorted to disgusting insults….get your mind out of the gutter solsurvivor. I think people who do that have what psychologists call “projection”. I won’t explain that my friends work as local support and the issues they have had to deal with are truly horrendous…ask locals what they think of “western” aid workers…or better still look it up if you are really interested in people’s health and well being like you claim you are – most left wingers aren’t. Again glib responses all around “soft” power non-sense…which you desperately try and tie into measurable outputs but don’t actually provide measurable… Read more »

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

How much of the 2019 aid budget went to third world dictators?

Fourth time

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

I would add the Royal Family to that list. Despite the moaners, they make more for the UK than they cost. The pageantry has the whole world watching. They are in effect another British brand.

SoleSurvivor
SoleSurvivor
5 months ago

Massively A recent example is the Queens Covid 19 address, I couldn’t stop reading for hours the comments underneath the American news videos on twitter, Facebook & YouTube Thousands & thousands of comments from Americans young and old from both sides of the political device over there, saying how they thought it was an address to them as well, and that she’s the worlds leader and worlds Queen etc, it was really heartening and a proper example of the cultural aspect of soft power, there is only one nation on earth that has a leader that can have that impact… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  SoleSurvivor

“there is only one nation on earth that has a leader that can have that impact and it’s us, something to be proud of”

BANG ON! I was emotional just watching it. She is the The Queen, at my age all I have ever known. Her demise when it comes will be an absolute bombshell to many. And her funeral will be watched by billions. Another example of soft power, it puts the UK on the map.

Americans? They can only dream of having that length of history!

julian1
julian1
5 months ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Singapore is mistakenly used as a model for almost everything which is nonsense. It is the size of a large conurbation but no more. In reality, there’s very few places on this earth it can be compared to.

geoff
geoff
5 months ago

Wow. I missed quite a Bosberaad/iMbizo which it would seem included a number of prominent insomniacs 🙂 Reading through all the posts I was waiting for one of yous to mention Foreign Aid-well said finally) to the penultimate post from Peter Shaw. My late thoughts-Foreign Aid probably has little to do with altruism but it does buy influence and sometimes certainly more, but am I correct in believing it runs at 14 Billion Pounds a year? If so surely we can pinch a few few Billion of that for Defence and other Treasury requirements? On the Nuclear Deterrent-echo most of… Read more »

geoff
geoff
5 months ago
Reply to  geoff

*Bosberaad-Afrikaans. A meeting in the Bush. The word became popular during the discussions that led to the 1994 Election in SA.
*iMbizo-Zulu. A meeting called by the Chief whereby his subjects or representatives were summoned to attend at the pleasure of the King, to discuss importnt matters

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
5 months ago
Reply to  geoff

A positive post geoff.

I agree, I too think there will be a bounce after this.

It’s getting light, and I’m suffering from insomnia. Just on the night shift and wondered who on earth is posting at 5 in the morning.

Sunny later!

geoff
geoff
5 months ago

Thanks Daniele! We are one hour ahead of you as you are now on BST Summer? Our cat wakes me at about 5am demanding food hence my early start. Overcast in Durbs. Enjoy the Sun
Cheers Geoff

David Barry
David Barry
5 months ago

I think Defence will see a cut, the unoccupied Army PIDs are low hanging fruit but as to the idea of selling equipment, it might get put in the shop window, but no-one is going to have any money to buy!

Foreign Aid will also have to be cut back while the economy is re-set and has anyone noticed that the price of oil has not been mentioned…

We’re going to need the best minds in Govt in the coming years.

Ron
Ron
5 months ago

Been reading all the doom its all doomed. Possibly it could go in a diffrent way, orders giving for the FSS ships, orders for an increase in T31s orders for 2-3 hospital ships creating thousands of jobs in ship building and the supply chains, all work and supply chains to be UK based. Increased tax returns to the treasury. Because of the security in work load people want to buy houses for their families, increased house building etc. I’m not saying that it will be like that but it is possible, if however there was to be cuts in defence… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
5 months ago
Reply to  Ron

It’s interesting Ron. I think the Pandemic might put a different slant on the defence review and as said, that’s probably prudent. I would agree that cuts can’t really be made as we are already cut to the bone, if there are, it will be Challenger upgrade, or perhaps the entire MBT fleet. Albion and Bulwark are vulnerable, the treasury vultures have been sat on telegraph poles watching those juicy carcasses for years… However, scrapping them without some form of replacement on the horizon might be a bridge too far, as it seems like the proposed forward sea basing SF/… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

The LPDs could have a dual role of a launch pad for extra large UUVs, I think?

Bill
Bill
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Who will buy the carrier we don’t want? Anybody with loose change in his pocket. Do you really think we will ask top dollar for it? Built to appease the Clyde yard anyone with half a brain cell knew that running two carriers was never going to be an option asthe govt would never fully commit to them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the CDG as a dedicated strike carrier and the Elizabeth class carriers will NEVER deploy its airwing capabilities. Its a national embarrassment wfhich we are all so used to. A tier 1 partner in the F35… Read more »

Harold
Harold
5 months ago
Reply to  Bill

I partly agree with you. I say ‘defence’ not ‘offence’ After all, a microscopic virus has brought the world to its knees.

John Clark
John Clark
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

They are hugely capable assets, no denying it, but very expensive to operate and manpower hungry.

The lack of being able to carry and support air assets is certainly a negative in their survival going forward too unfortunately.

Steve
Steve
5 months ago

Can’t really argue with the justification given for the delay, but i suspect the associated reason is to reconsider the review in light of the new massive debt caused by the virus, aka need for cuts. The banking crisis cost the government approx. £500b in debt (i believe this figure is right), whilst the virus has already cost £330b in government handouts and that is before the significant drop in tax revenue and considering its not over yet, so will hit the country way way more. No question that the military will take another 2010 defense review with significant cuts,… Read more »

Julian
Julian
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve

Exactly. With the economic earthquakes rippling across the world of a magnitude never seen in anyone’s lifetime (a significant percentage of the world’s population in lock down and massive state support of businesses and individuals by many major economies) plus no idea of how subsequent waves of infections possibly combined with mutations might prolong the crisis, the Government has no idea whatsoever what its finances will look like in a few months or years time and what sort of world macro-economic environment those finances will be existing within (Exchange rates? Commodity prices? Interest rates? Changes in trading relationships?). Attempting to… Read more »

David
David
5 months ago

Even larger cuts on the way then……

john melling
5 months ago

I see cut backs in Defence, and extra spending on a failed NHS, plus more money being given to the usual countries that don’t need it

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  john melling

the NHS is our 2nd amendment. Unfortuetly opinions on it our to strong to allow any open discussion. While I am for one a big supporter of the concept and think it embarrassing that people in the 1st world our dyeing because they cant afford healthcare or even have to pay for it, the NHS is an old system that seems to scared to adapt. Unfortuetly I fear this current crises will solidify this belief. When in reality it is the dedication of health care workers in both the public and private sector that is making the difference.

john melling
5 months ago
Reply to  Harry Bulpit

Harry,
Was talking to my dad earlier, after reading and adding the above message!
He said the exact same thing you have written !!
The dedication of the staff is not the problem, it’s the same system since the NHS began that they follow and more Billions thrown and wasted at it.
Will they bow down to changes…

As for the Defence sector….it’s another long drive down a road full of potholes

Hopefully very few cut backs

Harry Bulpit
Harry Bulpit
5 months ago
Reply to  john melling

Hopefully you’re right. But some streamlining would be good, with the savings hopefully going to all does hard workers at the bottom of ladder. Of both the NHS and military.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
5 months ago

Thinking purely in terms of outcomes, if the West including UK does pare defence yet again post C-19 then the Politburo* will be able to chalk up a further tactical win on it’s, possibly assumed, march to dominance. Covid itself probably represents the first truly strategic hit in real terms, serendipitious or not. * maybe more accurate than just saying China.
Separately, does the site need a rethink on posting? After a while one cannot accurately discern whose replying to whom.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
5 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Right, on reflection, rather than just ask the question, what if an addressee box needed to to be input before the post would transmit? I appreciate that the individual addressee will know who’s replied from the message in their email, and that the post indents are designed to answer, but after a short while a third party is as like as not totally lost.
For consideration.

john melling
5 months ago

Someone please polish Gavins glasses ;P

Harold
Harold
5 months ago

I am amazed how gullible you people are! The cuts will come and will be necessary to assist in paying for the health crisis. It will come as a shock to you and you will become all excitable, but you won’t stop them. Some of you will become all ‘warry’ and throw insults at me I don’t doubt, as your testosterone A small UK based army, maybe 50,000 strong to include Royal Marines, at the most, no need for heavy armour, coastal patrol navy, a dozen or so frigates and destroyers and a couple of squadrons of jets plus air… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Harold

Ah Harold and his Defence force once more! I see your military experience is zero, as any defense force with no offensive capability, both strategic and tactical, will lose every single time! Therefore pointless concept and may as well bin any and all military, totally. You talk about a defensive force continuously, and now is your opportunity to explain its TTPs, and concept of operations, force structures in defending the UK. And it’s amusing to note that you say we will throw insults, mmmmmmm, the only insults I have seen is the ones you have stated. And I have to… Read more »

Harold
Harold
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Time will prove me right.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

The troll seems very rattled!

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

His writing style has changed somewhat, probably to make a weak effort at having 2 different styles for his two different avatars, aka Iqbal. And you are correct that he is rattled as his dual trolling has been clocked.

Harold
Harold
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

No, far from it. Merely stating the obvious.

Harold
Harold
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

No. I have no military experience. But I do continue to pay my taxes after over 60 years of doing so. I am also a frequent correspondent with elected representatives at all levels as is my right.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Harold

@Harold
So, do you know who ‘Lord Haw-Haw’ is?

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Harold

And what has that got to do with my polite requests for you to elaborate on your Defence force concept, which I notice you have conveniently ignored! And I see you reined in your more troll like comments and trying to appear more reasoned, which I may add, still show you have absolutely no subject matter knowledge or experience, a fact most would be embarrassed about with the amount of soap box waffle you come out with.

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Harold

So your 76 years old then? Wow and never served? Born in 44, not even national service then?

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

I think his age group would of been the last to serve NS, I could be wrong?

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Possibly as NS ended in 1960, so he is deffo pure armchair peacnik General!

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Harold

You a mother of all liers!!
You have always sprouted anti-militarism on here, and as Iqbal on other places!
You also know F**K All of economics!

Harold
Harold
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

I have no idea who ‘Iqbal’ is.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Harold

@Harold
Iqbal uses the exact writing style as you do.
So, either you are telling porkies, or he is copying
you!

Harold
Harold
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

@Meirion X I have no idea who ‘Iqbal’ is, nor do I care. It does amuse me that the conspiracy theorists on this site now believe I am someone else though. Paranoia and self deluson – it must be a nightmare for some of them! Still, it makes me chuckle during these rather bleak times!

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Harold

@Harold
In that case then, it is You who has other avatars!
Also you come across as a bit of a psychopath, I see from other postings!
Also you avoided my question of who was Lord Huw-Huw. I think you do know because of the
similarities with Yourself Harold.

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  Harold

Harold, you talk strategic common sense. You are realistic to know the reaction that came from the tunnel vision commentators. Your cuts are unrealistic though. In my opinion there will be no redundancies this time, although we know the Conservatives have done that before. The Army will probably stay around 75,000.

Harold
Harold
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

@PaulSergeant Thanks. I don’t suppose the military figures are quite as reported now and are probably lower. In fairness, rather than redundancies, a run down is more likely I feel. The National Audit Office have aleady talked of a managed run down in respect of military equipment replacement. Whether the posters on this site like it or not, there is only so much money and the UK does need to settle down to being a middle rank European player without the pretensions it can no longer afford. It does amuse me that the conspiracy theorists on this site now believe… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Harold

You are so amusing, you have denied being Iqbal far to much pal……..

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

I see you have yet to read Harold’s troll efforts mate! Spends far to much time spouting nonsense and quite nasty with it. Cheers.

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

Strategic conmon sense, really? How do you see a purely defensive force for the UK military operating mate? Genuine question?

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Airborne, “a purely defensive force” is your phrase. Harold’s phrase is “The UK will never be invading anyone”. He goes on to ask if Russia and China are enemies. The UK has invaded both in the past. Do you expect we will try it again?

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

Nope wrong I’m afraid, Harold has posted numerous times with anti military comments, and in at least 3 posts stated the UK military should only be a defensive force, Defence force, etc etc. you may need to read many of his previous posts and my question to him in regard to his Defence force concept have been asked again and again yet with no answer. So it’s best to see the whole picture in regard to this than just one single post.

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Nope, nothing on this thread from Harold about a purely defensive force. That is you. So I ask again, will you invade Russia or China?

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

I can see this being hard for you. Harold has repeated on many occasions that the UK military should be a Defence force! On many stories over the last few weeks. I have requested he verify how that force should be composed and operated. Deafening silence. And your comment about should we invade Russia or China is slightly childish don’t you think. If you want to ignore what I say as it doesn’t fit with your current narrative, that’s fine, I couldn’t really give a toss, but come on, try to maintain a grown up attitude. And I also see… Read more »

Steve R
Steve R
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

Actually you are wrong there. He doesn’t use the words “defensive force”, however the description he gave of his vision of the UK armed forces in his original post describes exactly a purely defensive force. “A small UK based army, maybe 50,000 strong to include Royal Marines, at the most, no need for heavy armour, coastal patrol navy, a dozen or so frigates and destroyers and a couple of squadrons of jets plus air transport in case of civil emergency although even that can be leased in.” The above, which is quoted directly from his original post on this page,… Read more »

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

Steve R

I’ve just seen your reply in my e-mail, I don’t check often. This was a busy thread and I didn’t reply to everybody. Yours was the only e-mail.

You are commenting on Harold’s proposals. I replied to Harold and said his proposed army of 50,000 was unrealistically small and I expected it would stay about 75,000. On consideration, I may be wrong. This government could well cut again, but I hope not to 50,000.

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

And do you expect that the UK will never ever face an armed enemy, with the ability and will, to take and hold UK terrain, control sea lanes and restrict air space, ours or our friends and allies? You can say that 100% that will never happen?

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

And again I ask, because you do it, will you invade Russia or China?

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

And there you go, oh dear, confirmation that subject matter knowledge does seem to be lacking, with no answer forthcoming. Childlike one liners, 1/10 I’m afraid.

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

OK, there is a chance (small) that the UK will face an enemy, in your words, with the ability take and hold UK terrain. Harold has proposed a force to combat that.

I’ve answered your question now answer mine. Will you invade Russia or China?

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

Harold hasn’t proposed a force he has proposed an unqualified concept, one which I have asked him to quantify in regard to capabilities, concept of operations and equipment, which he had repeatedly ignored. As for Russia and China, I don’t intend to invade them but Harold and yourself have mentioned it a number of times, secretly do you want to? Good luck, you may need some help.

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

And again you don’t answer the question.

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

Really? Catch up pal, catch up, and then try to keep up, question answered already. Oh dear, is this hard?

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Yes, it’s hard. Your answer “I don’t intend to invade them” was well hidden in other comments. Sorry I missed that. So we are not building an invasion force but a defence force that Harold has not defined well. What is your proposal?

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

And by saying that, has confirmed your total lack of subject matter knowledge. I haven’t proposed anything, I have asked a question repeatedly. I will keep this massively simple for those who have no subject matter knowledge, then I will leave you to dwell on it. A defensive force with no offensive capability will lose every single time. You leave the enemy the option to choose the time, the place/places, force disposition, force strength and then time to re-position and re-arm and re-plan if necessary. A boxer only fighting defensively will lose, every single time. I cannot go through the… Read more »

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

No proposal from Airborne. Harold’s proposal is to cut the Army to 50,000. My proposal is to keep the Army around 75,000. That’s not so much my proposal, more my expectation. I expect the same for the other services, no headline changes. Possibly no review will be published, just a statement that it has been completed. But I don’t know what politics will be a year from now. As the late Harold said, a week is along time in politics.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

You may have to consult a General, who would be a expert in land warfare!

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

No proposal, as not here to propose but to ask genuine questions of those who say rather silly piffle with no subject matter experience or knowledge. I use my experience, knowledge and training to come to a military conclusion, as opposed to a bit of headline agenda oriented waffle. It’s a vast subject and I’m afraid way past the capability of Harold and yourself. However keep contributing as we all get a say.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

100% Agreed with you Airborne!

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

Harold also says, building submarines is a waste of money! Modern submarines have a capability to sink a hostile feet besieging Britain.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

Sorry, a misspelling, I mean fleet or force.

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Meirion, usually misspellings jump out at me although I do miss some of my own. Your feet I just read as fleet until I saw your correction. Perhaps it was the strange idea of a fleet besieging Britain that took my attention. I think most sea trade comes into the channel ports or round to the Thames. The channel is a busy international seaway, there is more traffic than just to and from Britain. The siege fleet would have pick out the British traffic. There is AIS of course, but that can be changed. I’m speculating and thinking further, traffic… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

This threat is realistic!
An enemy would only need to lay siege to the most important ports.
Obviously you dont seem to like submarines as well? You are trying to find any excuse for Britain not to have them. You seem to have the same mindset as Harold!

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

I’ve not mentioned submarines. Obviously you are making things up.

Meirion X
Meirion X
5 months ago
Reply to  PaulSergeant

It is implied from your reply that you dont like submarines because they are a vital tool of the defence of Britain.

Also I noticed you avoid answering direct questions, just like Harold!

Highly likely, am Spot On here!

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

I did go for an interview at Barrow once but wasn’t offered a job. It could have been interesting work, but now submarines don’t interest me much. I’ve nothing against them, just not much interested.

That said, I would have liked the RN to have some AIP boats for use round the EEZ. Sticking with British engineering is good, but nuclear is expensive and limits numbers.

But I expect for you this sort of stuff goes in one ear and out the other, you’ll just keep making it up.

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
5 months ago

After this is passed , Govt finances will indeed need to be looked at and if needed a slight raising of taxes may be acceptable to the public , In my opinion the MOD need to be smarter in how it uses and allocates its resources, Drug busting in the Carribean should be billed to the Home secretary, Mercy, aid and disaster relief missions to International aid.Gulf ops to protect UK flagged vessels billed to the respective companies or insurers The 2 carriers were ordered to ensure during refit we would always have 1 available, however would have no issue… Read more »

Darren
Darren
5 months ago

The Gov will go to town on defence now and dispite the work from the great UK armed forces with this covid shit, they will get hit, if the people in power are total wank+rs! We may all have to pay more tax in the short term (few Years), but that does not mean underfunding a service that has protected this Country for centuries and is so abused now. The Money we think we have saved from importing from low wage economies (mostly shippers, importers and outsourcing firm make money on, not the consumer) with crap products that do not… Read more »

Lord Flasheart
Lord Flasheart
5 months ago

Great to see the armed forces helping the NHS. Congratulations to Airbus on breaking world aviation records, as Matt Hancock’s PPE spent four days in the air “on the way” from Turkey, truly a miracle of modern aviation. My only concern is the comparison to WW2. If you remember, we didn’t stop losing WW2 until we got rid of a PM and formed a coalition. The Daily Mail says you chaps “slammed” the NHS for their failures. Well isn’t that rather like expecting you to win tank battles without a tank? We’re all on the same side here, even if… Read more »

Lord Flasheart
Lord Flasheart
5 months ago
Reply to  Lord Flasheart

The armed forces might be right about the NHS, but that is a result of austerity and deliberate neglect. Funding was double under Labour. If the Daily Mail report is true, then that is extra-ordinary that the armed forces would point the finger at the NHS rather than those responsible for the neglect. Shocking when NHS are dying from a lack of PPE.

RobW
RobW
5 months ago

Yesterday Ben Wallace told the Defence Select Committee that the FSS competition would reopen later in the year. He also said that there would be some painful decisions to come.

We are committed to 2% of GDP but as GDP will likely fall that means the budget will too. I suspect things like F35B numbers, Ch2 upgrades, the Albions, and maybe a T26 or 2 will be on the agenda.

PaulSergeant
PaulSergeant
5 months ago
Reply to  RobW

Politics is a funny game. In the old quote a week is a long time in politics but RN may be playing the really long game. All the T26’s have been named. Edinburgh and London have been cancelled – that headline would go high in the news agenda. And they’re not going to be ordered for a few years, so no quick savings. Equipment is 20% of the Defence budget. Painful decisions may include more than equipment. I’ve said somewhere above that I don’t think there will be redundancies, I think that would another bad headline. But the public don’t… Read more »

Rob Collinson
Rob Collinson
3 months ago

With the 20% reduction of our GDP in one month, the defence budget has been wiped out in one swift blow. The credit-crunch on steroids. The Defence and Security Review will be more cutting and slicing than the 2010 Review. Possible Caualties: 138 F-35 – No chance – cut and slowing down of current purchases Ajax cut to bare minimum Boxer cut to bare minimum JLTV cut To bare minimum HMS PoW mothballed or sold Army numbers cut Navy numbers cut RAF extra squadrons cut P8 order trimmed E-7 down to 3 No upgrade to Challenger Protector order from 20… Read more »