Britain to boost defence budget by £2.9bn

You actually believe that do you.The public financces are now far worse off, with labour on its old game of borrowing and spending. Clear intent that a leopard doesn’t change its spots.
Let us wait until the latest Government defence review is published, then we will see how serious they are about defending this country.

Yes I do. Difference is labour is borrowing to invest whilst the last goverment didn’t invest in anything, resulting in everything from roads, to rail, yo hospitals, to NHS, to schools failing. Which its the economy

There is a reason that wages grew in real terms under the last Labour and went down heavily under the Conservatives.

I envy your belief in Starmers utopian state, misguided though it is.

Time will tell. Also don’t forget national debt was sky rocketing under the Conservatives even before covid.

I’m basing my hope on history. The economy and public services and real term living standards went all up under the last Labour and all down during the last Conservative. They were all headed down before covid hit so that isn’t the reason nor is Russia.

There is not a single performance measure where the Conservatives have done better tha the last labour government.

Whether the current one will do the same, time will tell.

Indeed. From highest rate of public satisfation with the NHS in 2010 to lowest under the last Tory mess that was pretending to be a government, fo r example.

Some people have forgotten which party had been in power for fourteen years.

Understood, thanks.

Yes, my first thought was that this might have been simply a trendy, transitory programme of the RN…😉

Ahhh…thanks! 👍😊 Actually had seen that version of the acronym previously.

👍

No we were getting as low as 1.97%

Because they’re cheap, easy to keep stored, and you need to provide indirect fires to a lot of relatively static defence forces. As I said, we love to look at Finland’s strengths and go “wow” but turn a blind eye at what they sacrifice to achieve it.

Indeed they are not ever doing anything expeditionary and need others to ensure their national interest globally…I suspect that is why in the end they made the move to NATO…if they ever had a spat with Russia, Russia could have formally undertake a longer range blockade and they would have struggled to do much about it. It would be a hard nation to attack and overrun with ground forces…but they had a weakness to a nation applying wider geostrategic pressure and sub war kinetic and none kinetic operations.

JD Vance (and lets face it a Trump Presidency will probably mean a JD Vance presidency if he’s actually suffering from dementia) has publically stated that his position is that Ukraine must give up all occupied territories, become a “neutral” nation, and cease importing arms from the west.

Hmm?
No experience of youth not wanting to work here, majority of friends (not me) have side jobs on top of A levels and most discussing pay and when they can fit hours in.
Granted, it’s mostly working in Coop, but no sign of a “lazy generation” as some seem to fear.

Don’t worry. If you look back throughout history every generation makes the same complaints about “the current youth not wanting to get their hands dirty.”
The Cold Warriors wouldn’t shut up about Millennials being too soft to fight until suddenly they fought several wars in the middle east (much to the chagrin of the Cold Warriors who’d sat in the BAOR for their whole career).
If you look at 1939 there where plenty of old has beens who complained that the youth of the 30’s didn’t have the moral backbone to fight like the Lions of the trenches had.

Happens all the time. And they’re always proven wrong.

Indeed. there were articles in the DT all the time in the early 1990s from (mainly) ex Army and RM’s say the forces of today couldn’t do the Falklands again etc and then fast forward to 2001 onwards

Apparently there are records from Ancient Greece with elder statesmen in Athens complaining about the layabout youth in the city. Certainly not a new issue.
Hits differently when one of the people being talked down is you, though.

On the bright side, it gets better as you get older, and eventually you get to be the curmudgeon shouting about today’s youth at some point.

Is that what the mass immigration is for, to do the jobs our “lazy yoof” won’t do? The “even bigger” remark on military wages is telling too. You’re a retired welfare queen aren’t you?

From what I’ve read its retention that’s the issue. Plenty of recruits.

Yes, I’d make that switch as well.

I’d happily accept the army continuing with six Boxer Battalions if it meant we got a 3rd Challenger Regiment.

Yes that would probably be a sacrifice worth having, going down to 2 challenger regiments is a really bad idea.

Not sure if you saw my post to Graham the other day.
Apparently the Army are looking seriously at ARES as the IFV, with a corresponding reduction in the third Boxer tranche.
UKAFC reported this on X the other week.
I’m in agreement on your points and I’d take that right now.

Ares as an IFV, that would be pretty significant, I would vote for that one.

It was said that an external cannon ie RWS might be fitted rather than a crewed turret but it would be a real challenge to reconfigure ARES to take a 10-man AI section when it currently takes 6 men ie 2 crew and 4 dismounts. Would cost a lot to re-engineer and would take a lot of time. You would have to start by buying hundreds more ARES.

ARES, as in the Ajax APC variant without a turret? Or am I missing another platform with the same name?
I am very much in favour of using that ASCOD II base for our next IFV, after we’ve plowed so much money into it- not to mention the commonality and continued industry jobs, etc. But just wondering about the lack of turret? I’ve seen some unmanned ones these days, like an RWS with extra armour on- I would be for that as long as it’s beefy enough to take a CTAS 40 and (ideally) a box launcher for ATGM.

Yes, our ARES. Apparently the Army want to put a turret on it, with a 30mm. They would then use it as an IFV, but more, and reduce the future Boxer buy.

Interesting, I’d not heard this at all- good to see that they’re at least thinking about it. I don’t think we want to be reducing Boxer though, although I accept that the money has to be found somewhere.
Couple of observations:
I thought Ares just had room for 4-5 dismounts, which obviously isn’t close to enough for a section plus crew including the operator of the turret (I know, even Bradley and Warrior could only fit 7 dismounts, but that’s a lot better than 5). Turret and ammo will also influence this, even if Ajax’ ISTAR gear is pulled out (I assume the reason why they’re starting with Ares instead of Ajax).
Secondly, I get that 30 mm is more than sufficient. But we have a bunch of CTAS40s sitting around from WCSP, and I’m not a fan of maintaining 2 different calibres of autocannon. Would the WCSP turret be an option for this, save on some design etc? I presume the Ajax turret would be too bulky, what with all the ISTAR stuff in it.
I’ll keep an eye out for more information!

So the way I explained it elsewhere is that if i t ever happens it’s going to be a new sub-variant.

They’ll take the Ares base vehicle, strip the back out completely, reorganize it so it has three extra seats in the back (Ares currently has a Driver, Commander, Gunner, and 4 dismounts). They’ll then stick a RWS or uncrewed turret on top. The reason for 30mm is probably because fitting a new 30mm is easier than getting a 40mm gun onto Ares (although an uncrewed non-penetrating designed turret for 40mm does exist).

The reason they are starting with Ares rather than Ajax is because of the turret, less the ISTAR equipment. Both Ares and Ajax would need the back ripping out and redesigning, but for Ajax you’d also have to remove the turret…at which point you basically have an Ares if that makes sense?

WCSP turret is not an option. The problem with the Ajax turret is not that it’s “too bulky” it’s the Turret ring. The turret ring is the bit of the hull that supports the turret; in Ares/Ajax that ring is massive (because Ajax was designed to fit a 120mm. So big gun needs a big turret which in turn needs a big turret ring). The issue with that is that if you downsize to a 30mm, the turret still needs to be big to fit the turret ring, which means no space in the hull for troops.

You either need to redesign the hull to have a completely different turret ring (expensive, but you can use the WCSP turret) or get a non penetrating turret, or RWS that doesn’t need a turret ring (Less expensive but you need a new turret).

Thanks Dern, I hadn’t realised the turret ring was so large on Ajax as things go- that’s significant! Selecting Ares makes sense when it’s laid out like that.
The new uncrewed turrets that Kongsberg have put together for the US army, which can certainly take a 30 mm and TOW launcher at least, might be a good fit- as long as it’s non penetrating. I also think it’ll handle a 40 mm gun, and CTAS is smaller than most in terms of breech and suchlike, if I’m not mistaken. I’d rather go with that, seeing as we have the guns paid for, and I like the idea of commonality of supply in a warzone. Doesn’t one of the French vehicles have a 40 mm turret for CTAS40, or is that a crewed one?

Hi Joe
A lot of that tech specifics stuff is beyond me, but I see Dern has commented.
The reduction in Boxer isn’t from the first 600 or so, it’s the 400 later, or tranche 3, reduced to a few hundred to enable a higher ARES buy.
If you follow UKAFC and look on his Twitter feed a few weeks back it was all on there.

Thanks Daniele, I’ll take a look, although I do try and avoid Twitter where I can…
Glad to hear it’s not the “primary order”, although even the subsequent buys are needed vehicles in my view- there are a lot of options for modules that I think we’re going to need if we’re to have meaningful deployable forces in the environment we now find ourselves; major requirements for indirect precision fires, GBAD, infantry direct fire support, are ones that particularly spring to mind but aren’t (as far as I’m aware) all confirmed as modules on the buy-list.

I agree, by my understanding none of those are confirmed yet.
It’s like Drones, lots of talk and trials over and over, over many years, but no actual announcement or purchase.
E&TG(2Y) has put out a vid of them playing with ots of gizmos, gadgets and kit for the future, looked like at Copehill Down.
The army did the same when Strike was announced in 2015, and the same when FS was announced.
Will they EVER actually get on and buy this stuff?
It seems the future never arrives, and I find it frustrating.

True Warrior ‘could only fit 7 dismounts’ in the back but that was not a problem, as that was what was required. Veh Comdr dismounts as well as he is the section commander, so you get your 8-man dismounted section (two fire teams of 4).

BTW, Bradley M2 has only 6 dismounts in the back, not 7.

OG Bradley had 6 dismounts. M2A2 on wards has 7.

Thanks Dern for the detail.

The “only 7 dismounts” wasn’t particularly meant as a criticism- more as an observation compared to the standard 8-man section. But I stand corrected about the vehicle commander being section leader, so retract my statement. I didn’t realise that about the Bradley either!
Either way, adding space for 2-3 men and equipment, in and around a turret, would be a challenge on Ares I would expect. I know there are IFV variants on the ASCOD platform, I assume they’re a little longer than our version? As Dern mentioned, a non-penetrating unmanned turret or beefy RWS may help in the space department.
It’s still going to be a non-cost neutral change to the equivalent numbers of Boxer though, and I know you and I have had the conversation before that a tracked IFV simply isn’t in the plan for the Army at the moment. This is probably some very hopeful/optimistic Armoured officers having a bit of a thought exercise in barracks.

Dern mentioned that the M2A2 Bradley carries 7 dismounts whereas the original version had just 6.
There are several ways to get an IFV back into the armoured brigades. I wonder if converting ARES is the best (meaning fastest and cheapest and most effective in combat) approach. Alternatives might be:
1.to resurrect WCSP,
2.buy new or used CV90,
3.buy tracked Boxer with IFV mission module or
4.buy new or used Pizarro (ASCOD2).
5.buy surplus US M2A2 or later model Bradleys from US.
6.buy surplus used Marders from Germany.

Pros and cons with all of the above, of course.

No. I’ll look for it though.

well what you can do is redirect what you have to the threats you have…look at 11 brigade..is that now more or less useful than using the manpower to beef up the heavy brigades and mech brigades that may end up deterring Russian in Europe. There are a number of questions…the question of escort numbers…if they are going above 19 those orders need to be made sooner not later. Yes a lot of stuff will not be changes until later in the decade or early next decade..but that needs looking at now not at the end of the decade.

Also the optics..both Labour and the conservatives have stated they are moving spending to 2.5% GDP due to the threat…you cannot just Jack up the spending without a clear understanding of the threat you are reacting to…

I fear many Land programmes will still be running after 2030, such as RCH-155 and the last of the Boxers. ARES IFV, if it was approved, may not be fielded until after 2030.

Some other kit needs upgrading or replacing, but is not getting air time – CRARRV has now been in service for 36 years and has not been materially upgraded. Its armour protection is markedly below that of CR2/CR3.

Oo err.

The Tories were esponsible for a number of things but peopole forget that Johnson had to contend with Covid, a worldwide energy crisis and the war in Ukraine, almost as soon as soon as they were elected. The economy right through to the end was in a good state. It was there own infighting that brought them down.
I’m afraid that I can’t really agree with you on Reeves. I don’t trust her. Most of her budget and previoiusly announced financing was about the public sector and expecting the private sector to pay for it. My own company was nearly wiped out by Covid and we have spent three years getting back to half our original size. I am now faced with three tax rises in the very year that we have made our first profit. A charitable company I know,helping young people with abuse, housing and mental health issues is going to have to find at least another £92,000 nesxt year just to stand still.
£22 billion black hole? She knew about the shortfall in May and yet claimed to be surprised during the budget, and yet she has thrown £19 billion at the public sector in pay rises actually before the budget. Of the £22 billion of supposed new money for the NHS, £14 billion went in pay rises.
I will condemn the Tories (I certainly have on defence) but all I see coming are cuts from labour. Sorry, my friend but I am angry about the negativity this budget is already causing.😔

You’re not alone in feeling the pain, the company my wife owns was also battered by COVID and it’s been quite the road back out of that- we’re also not hopeful about the details of what the budget will bring from a personal impact perspective. Just to say, I’m not blind to, nor immune to the financial pain this is bringing.
That said, I can’t argue that those public sector pay rises were justified- if I had seen real drops in pay for as long as nurses and others have seen, I’d have found somewhere to work long ago. I’m not sure that there were any other options on that one.
I fully agree with you that she didn’t have to pretend that it was all a big surprise though, even the OBR has said that most of it was expected- even if the full scale of the shortfall wasn’t clear to them.
I think Labour hasn’t done themselves may favours in the sense of constraining themselves to certain routes for finding money to cover the shortfalls in government departments, meet Tory-imposed spending targets, and also to boost the economy further (yes, the economy has been growing under the Tories, very slowly, but almost exclusively in certain sectors that generally favour comparatively few in the finance and global services sectors rather than anyone else). They fell into the Tory trap of accepting that a country’s finances have to work on the same budget balancing rules as a household, and so their recourse for borrowing and other routes is massively constrained. By comparison, and especially after the 2008 crash and COVID and other items like that, most governments borrowed more and plowed it into infrastructure and other stuff- allowing the economy to recover better and then move on- rather than stagnate for a decade or so like ours did. Even the US, that bastion of hardcore capitalism (in truth only selectively), did this. I know that’s 15 years ago now, but it set the footings for the health of the economy when COVID hit, and also set the thinking of the public that borrowing is irresponsible- which is not always the case if you’re a stable economy like we are. The Tories used this to force Labour into limiting their options on raising funds to repair the departments that austerity had gutted to the point that they’re now beginning not to deliver what we expect of them.
So I’m frustrated by the way they’re limiting their own options and so inflicting that cost on us. But, at the same time, I’m fairly sure it’s a cost that needs paying from somewhere, no?

Sorry to hear about your wifes business. We are a couple of many sadly. Hopefully things will be alright for you.
My concern about the pay rises is that we are suppose to be getting defence, NHS and transport reviews, supposedly fot reform, in the new year which would have been the time to review wages. A promise of a pay review could have been made . Now she has spent £19 billion which is going to tie the hands of the reviews On the NHS a freeze on all admin. posts would have been more use. Admin and support (non medical) make up around sixty per cent of overall staff numbers.
I’m sorry, but for all thier faults I still don’t see how the Tories forced Labour into borrowing or taxing us for an extra £70 billion. It was a Labour decision. Spending on the NHS under the Tories was on a par with Blair/Brown, more with the spend on Covid; Defence was going to get a boost to 2.5 per cent. We were the sixth largest world economy; up to 2023 we had the highest growth in Europe next to Germany and one of the lowest unemploymnet rates.
Having said all this we shall have to wait and see of course but judging by the reaction to the budget, including by a large number of Labour back benchers, there are a lot of unhappy people out that..

My priority would be to rip up and then start again with liability laws, human rights, equality laws, planning and procurement thereby saving untold billions by making the private and public sector more efficient. Then recycle the savings into defence.

That never happens. Pay award is always met from MoD budget.