Britain to boost defence spending amid Russia threat

Can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, I am pleased to see foreign aid get a kicking and some more money for the Armed Forces. Does feel however like an increase of £14bn is going to be swallowed up very quickly. But hey, better than nothing

Seeing is believing.

Too slow. But there are several things worse than GDP levels. The enormous waste, gold plating, bad choices…

there is a “next parliament” timeline plan to get to 3%. That portion may be vaguer but finally, there is a hard plan for the next few years and the direction is the right one

Yeah in the short term, we’ll need the USA whether we like it or not but ultimately the Government is trying to do the long term given all the stuff to improve the UK military will take time

I would imagine if the US pulls the rug out from under Ukraine and heaven forbid Ukraine falls that 3% by next Parliament will be revised pretty quickly.

Not quick enough nor nearly enough but it is a step in the right direction and I can only hope it continues.

The positive is that the budget is now going in the right direction and rightly funded from foreign aid.
However, we are years late and the target of 3% needs to be reached much sooner. But a good day (relatively) for defence.

Hopefully the defence review coming up soon can now announce that we will now order more frigates and fighter jets based on extra funding being available from 2027 onwards, small but welcome increase, moving to 3% is needed as soon as possible.

Do we know what the current spending on intelligence and security is?
Unless it’s less than 0.1% GDP this isn’t as much of an increase as it looks.

So we are spending 52 billion Pounds this FY?

Well, a week in politics and all that! The Commons spoke as one voice today as Starmer told the House more must be spent on defence. Trump’s mandate that Europe must pay more on defence is quickly gaining space. Now Germany is talking about independence from US protection and building up its forces at pace. I’m in two minds when it comes to Germany rearming it always ends badly. Interesting times and greater dependence on home-built equipment could result in new tank factories and a return to fewer foreign products. In my estimation, the West has about two-three years before Russia unleashes its forces once more.

The US is spending $850 billion in the current FY- Europe should not compare itself with mediocre states – instead the combined European Defence budget should be above $1 trillion, reflecting the demographic size among others- In short, Britain should spend at least $100 billion, in preparations for war.

now the question is if we can spend the money wisely our armed forces do not have a good record when it comes to buying kit. Also the PM talks about the need for everyone to step up if thats the case then why does his government not increase uk domestic energy production and stop making us reliant on imports to keep the lights on do the same for food production aswell !

You all need to listen to all of his speech it’s very nuanced.

Well he has come out and said it the U.K policy is now NATO 1st, which probably indicates the direction of the SDR. So we can expect that we are going to pull back from the Gulf and any reinforcement of the Far East is History.

As for the increase in spending well it’s a start, but let’s be perfectly honest it just plugs the hole in the present equipment plans and that’s about it. So if we have to take on the extra task of Peacekeeping in the Ukraine that has to be either funded separately by the Treasury or Defence cuts.
IMHO I think he could have gone further and said 2.5% by 2027 and a graduated raise to 3.0% in the following 5 years I might just say yep, OK that’s not bad.

But it’s 2.5% (2.6% with extra for security / intelligence included) and maintain at that till next Parliament and then an ambition to go to 3.0% in next Parliament but subject to etc, etc, etc..

So same old, same old political Blah, Blah dressed up as good news.

On the other hand I doubt if it will impress Mr Tango one little jot ! So Starmer better invest in some real defence such as a copy of the Beano down the back of his trousers.

There is one question I would love an MP to ask and it’s this :-

“At present we are spending £3billion pa on Defence Aid to the Ukraine, so if there is a ceasefire / peace deal and we have to deploy can that money be redirected to supporting our Peacekeeping effort ?”

It’s a welcome start. Pleased to see the cross-party support across the House today, we go forward united politically, in the absence of anyone on the Reform benches.

Starmer’s intention to increase this to 3% in the next Parliament, if economic and fiscal conditions permit, sets a high bar for whoever wins the next election.

The increase is a fairly small one in the scheme of things. The defence budget will rise by £5.3 bn a year, from £59.8bn to £64.1bn. Better than nothing, but it will not result in lots of additional personnel and equipment. Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee told us last year that there is a large adverse gap between the MOD’s expenditure plans and its real-world budget. So we can expect the new money to largely disappear just to pay for recent pay increases, what’s already on order and what the MOD has announced it wants to order but can’t afford.

Militarily-informed circles say that any spare cash won’t be spent on metal bashing fighting vehicles, aircraft or ships, it will largely go on ‘transformation’ – development of AI, the space force, FPV, ISTAR and UUV drones, development of laser weapons, cyber, etc. This is Gen Walker’s ‘double the lethality of what we’ve got’ story.

Any hopes of more Typhoons, more army troops, T32 frigates and so on are apparently likely to be dashed by the SDR in favour of these transformation initiatives.

The timing is very obvious, moving funds from International Aid to Defence the same week he flies over to meet Trumpy – who seems to have (illegally) shut down USAID. We’re probably going to see a string of these – Macron earlier this week was proposing that France might raise defence spending to 5%.

Starmer hoping this will help his credibility in arguing that Trump shouldn’t throw Ukraine under a bus simply so that the USA can turn a profit by traiding again with Russia.

This is very very good news, it is exactly what was needed, infact I really could not have asked for more at present..

The 2.5% for 2027 is perfect answer just the right timscale.

What I will be looking closely at now is the 3% conversion, to me the mood music is that the 3 major parties are behind the scenes looking to develop a consensus on defence and security. Why do I say that because starmers speech was pretty Apolitical, infact he went so far as to complement the Conservative Party on Ukraine and he did not mention what the great Cameron did in 2010. Also we have both other parties seeding the thought around 3%. Starmer was also clear that a defence and security review was coming to parliament for debate…that’s not the same as a the executive simply publishing a defence review. Essentially what he said between the lines was essentially the strategic defence review as a single piece of work had now been superseded.

So I suspect we will see the wider defence and security review delivering what 2.5% will provide in the near term, how our security services will act, including political and sup kinetic conflict, what our stimulus of the military industrial complex will look like and the structure of how over the coming year the parties will knock out a debate to find a consensus on 3% ( because for that pain a consensus will be needed with no sniping from the sidelines).

In the immediate future I suspect we will see ( before the defence and security review )

1) Medium rotor order
2) typhoon order for around 30-50 aircraft and with a plan in the review to move up to 7- 8 front line squadrons
3) some major working on making the infantry brigades in 1 division deployable with CS CSS
4) The top up order of F35Bs to 78 ( I suspect this may be a back pocket..announcement at the trump meeting )
5) an upscaling of the MBT order to 200+

in the review suspect we will see
1) 3rd Division going to 3 heavy brigades, with more MBTs and maybe if we are lucky a warrior lifex or a cannon for boxer
2) strengthen of the infantry brigades in 1st division, with a new APC type full CS and CSS ( fires is really important here)
3) RAF to increase squadron numbers aiming for 7 typhoon and 3 F35
3) 6 AEW aircraft
4) an order for more T31 and the MRSS order for 6 confirmed
5) a new mine warfare and patrol fleet
6) a proper army based drone capability for all brigades
7) proper drone capability for all RN escorts
8) tomahawks deployed on surface warships
9) significant war stocks of all munitions as well as a sustained industrial base increase

Long term with the the 3% debate I expect the next parliament consensus to be

1) increased size of Nuclear deterrent, possibly a joint project with France for an airborne element to the deterrent
2) moving to 20 frigates and more than 6 AAW destroyers
3) increase in numbers of SSNs
4) conversions of the carriers to support catapult launched heavy drones
5) moving to 12 fast jet squadrons
6) 12 AEW aircraft in 2 squadrons
7 12 ASW aircraft inn2 squadrons
8) increasing the number of fully deployable infantry Brigades in 1st division to 3+ the air assault brigade

Any increase In defence spending Is welcome. However, Is this announcement going far/quickly enough?

Thoughts on how best to spend the extra funding?

Hopefully we will move to 3% sooner rather than later as this is a number that would change the capabilities of our Armed Forces In a big way.

Give Trident back it’s own budget and then see a real rise in spending ion conventional weaponry.. The reason we don’t seem to get bangs for bucks is that a certain government/ Chancellor decided to include Trident in the main Defence budget effectively cutting Defence spending as we had known it for many years and look where we are now! Alternatively, raise Defence spending to 5%, in this day and age even 2.5% is a joke

So when it goes to 3%, it’ll actually be 2.9% for defence, what with .1% of it being for the security services.

what’s odd is that they didn’t begin to significantly increase defence spending way back in 2010, when they started poking the bear

IMHO the most important part was his reply to Badenoch where he confirmed the “NATO 1st” policy. If that is embedded in the SDR it’s bye to Bahrain, UAE and all the other small outposts overseas. Which does sort of help the budget a bit, fewer tasking releases resources for other Tasks.

As for Thursday if I were Starmer I’d probably remind Mr Trump of what we buy and maybe going to be buying from US. Meanwhile as for the present mess it’s time we actually coordinate more with France. It looks like they are committing their Tactical Nuclear Weapons to provide a Tactical Nuclear umbrella for Europe to replace the US one.
FYI The UK CASD is the only Nuclear force actually tasked to NATO (Gulp).

I didn’t see anything about increasing the number of platforms in the military. The UK’s biggest problem is that it just doesn’t have enough “stuff” if it had to fight a peer adversary, not a lack of sophistication in its platforms.

For those thinking of voting for Reform, where was Farage during the announcement in parliament?

Another Wedgetail would be nice, I believe the recommendation was for 3 but only 2 got ordered?

In the end Starmer had no choice but go big on defence spending, otherwise he had no chance of making an impact in Washington. An almost immediate 2.5% with a goal of 3% was really the minimum after Macron’s remark that France considering 5%, albeit with a notable of lack of detail on how and when given that France financial position is no better than the UK’s! The devil is in the detail, economists are pointing that depending how the calculations are done, it could mean anything from £6bn to £13bn extra a year for the MOD from 2027. I have a suspicion that it will be the former. But at least the SDR team now has a firm’ish number to work with, lets see what they can squeeze out of it- it looks fairly sure that the Army will do best, with a few scraps thrown to the RAF and RN. But we know that an awful lot of the money is going to be spent on AI, missile and UAV defences, space, infrastructure and munition stocks, and only a small proportion on a few extra guns, AFV’s, aircraft and ships.

3% has entered the chat

£13 billion extra a year by 2027 should deliver
Deeper stocks of ammunition
Deeper stocks of spares
Small uptick in hardware, ideally 5 Wedgetails AWACS moving to 7-9 by 2030,
9 Poseidon MPA now and an additional 5-6 by 2030 (£1.2 billion)
5 more Type 31s (£2 billion)
6 SAMP/T batteries £2.4 billion
Additional 2-3 type 26s (£1.6-2.4 billion) especially if Norway purchases 6 type 26s that should really help to keep platform costs down.
24 tranche 4 typhoons by 2030 (£3.6 billion)
27 F35Bs (3.2-3.3 billion) by 2029
Retain tranche 1 typhoons
GCAP annual development budget (1.2 billion/ annum)
Archer SPGs x50-
All C2s to C3 and all tanks fitted with trophy aps and adequate trophy sub munitions – (300 million)
Additional 24 Apache Es (£400 million)
Munitions – hellfire for Apache, brimstone, storm shadow, paveway, MLRS, artillery shells, missiles for mk41 vls- LRASM X150 missiles, ASROC, sea and land ceptor- get hundreds and hundreds.spear 3, martlett etc etc get as many as possible.
All should be achievable with 2.5% especially as moving towards 3%>
If government cut welfare bill they could easily save £40 billion a year. The fact is we have 3.1 million adult age people on universal welfare benefit, millions of those have no physical, mental or health reasons not to be working.

It will be interesting to see how the SDSR comes out. If this money is just going to kit then it is being wasted. There needs it to be an increase in mass.

As others have said, it’s not 13/14 billion per year. Ir’s Reeves arithmetic again. It’s more like 4/5 billion with inflation at 3 per cent so what increase?

Foreign aid was very badly spent anyway and soft power is nonsense. The only thing in the world that matters is hard power. Personally I would have trimmed overseas aid to 0.1% to cover emergency programmes only. The only ones squealing will be the wealthy NGO execs and the third world dictators plus a load of woke people.

Anyone else clock Starmer saying the SDR will be published in weeks?

Foreign aid was very badly spent anyway and soft power is nonsense. The only thing in the world that matters is hard power. Personally I would have trimmed overseas aid to 0.1% to cover emergency programmes only.

It’s a mive in the right direction, but my gut feel is that it’s too little, too late.

This aint really making sense though is it?

The 0.2% increase isn’t near the £13.4bn figure he spouted on about.

Starmer: “That means spending £13.4bn more on defence every year from 2027”

Thats actually not a 0.2% increase. Its actually ~ £5.7bn

We need some clarity which number it is. £13.4bn increase would bring us closer to 2.8% of GDP

To little to late. This should have been done two years ago.

To little to late.

Can we start by buying a couple of second hand B737’s for the two AESA radars we have in store?

I think a lot of people are potentially significantly underestimating how much this will be.. a lot of people are looking at the 2023 GDP figures and reading .2% of that.

First off remember that even to stand still it drop as a % of GDP defence spending always trends up a lot per decade. In 2000 defence spending was actually close to 2.5% to 2.8% ( depending on methodology) but was only 28 billion, by 2011 as a total it was lower 2.2 to 2.5% ( depending on methodology) but the actual amount had increased significantly to 46 billion…

So we need to listen to what is actually being predicted… even to stay the same sort of % of GDP the defence budget goes up around 1-3 billion a year there are estimates that by 2027 the budget would be in the mid 60 billions before any increase in percentage of GDP and what starmer actually stated was we will increase defence spending in 2027 by 14 billion a year.. so even a number of commentators that don’t like labour are stating the defence budget will be up to the 80 billion mark.. if we move to 3% by the early 2030s we will be looking at well north of 100 billion.. and for any who say that is fantasy land the 2000 budget was 26billion and was well over 2.5%….that same level of commitment in 2011 would have been over 50 billion…

I’ve missed anyone posting on where Trump thinks that increase in spending would be spent… if NATO MS did all increase their spending.

More F35s ordered? kerching $
Abrams? Kerching $
Chinooks? Kerching $
Blackhawks? Kerching $

Bar ships and subs, American industry has been pushing for a bonanza and their toy boy is beginning to make it happen;

Well, personally, I’d take Japanese K1s, South Korean panthers, HK weapons, CV90s, our own T26 with a reformed Cdo Bde and its enablers along with a rejuvenated, (vomit) Airborne Bde.

Wherever this money gets spent, God in Heaven, do not spend it in America.

Utter smoke and mirrors to try and impress Trump and do some virtue signalling. – its not even an extra £15Bn between now and 2029 alongside the already planned increase to 2.5% by 2030 that the previous Tory government had already implemented. This is simply underwhelming in reality and very far from what a Security Council global power should be spending in the present environment.

Any increase in defence spending is good however, too little and too late.

For years I have, and continue to do so, lambast various governments (particularly Labour for numerous reasons) for a dereliction of duty on defence. Either for idealogical, or monetary reasons.
However I will eat humble pie and say that today marks a major sea change in official attitudes around defence, in no small part due to President Trump indirect influence. And mark my words, this is a good thing. Boris foreshadowed this a couple of years ago, but between Trump, Ukraines slow motion losing of the war, and the general sense of European (in particular) military weakness, today we are seeing minds sense the urgency of national defence.
Thank God, and about time. Now let’s see what bang we get for that buck.

The PM looked gutted today that he cut the foreign aid budget, to pay for the increase in Defence spending . Still I agree he’s done the right thing ,which is the first time since coming into office .Although 2.5% is no great shakes but it’s a start of time is on our side 🙏 A lot of is own MPs are disappointed in is decision . Found it quite comical that one of is MPs said he was short sighted has many Country’s relied on our foreign aid budget . I personally think she’s short sighted when our own people are are struggling to pay bills and can’t afford to eat, and our pensioners are been Frozen, and Farmers are getting a kicking. And all this coming from someone on £91,000 year. Still let’s hope the PM trip to USA goes well and Trump sticks with NATO members rather than leaning towards Putin. God help Starmer if Trump says 2.5% -3% not enough .

Again, we are all debating about the symptoms rather than real solution to the European security. The removal of Vladimir Putin would constitute a lasting solution to the security of Europe and that involves several issues:

His removal will end the Russian Aggressive Expansionism as an instrument foreign policy. Putin has been associated with a foreign policy that seeks to expand Russian influence through military aggression, as seen in Ukraine, Georgia, etc. and the annexation of Crimea. His removal might lead to a significant reduction in belligerent actions against neighboring countries, thus contributing to a more stable European security landscape.

His removal will present Russia with the opportunity for Reform. The post Putin leadership could potentially be more open to reform and engagement with European countries. A new administration may prioritise diplomatic relations, fostering trust and cooperation rather than confrontation, which could lead to collaborative security efforts and stability in Eastern Europe.

The demise of Putin’s regime might lead to the reduction of Hybrid threats. Under Putin’s regime, Russia has employed hybrid warfare tactics, including disinformation campaigns and cyber-attacks aimed at destabilising EU member states. A change in leadership might result in a shift away from such tactics, thereby reducing the hybrid security threats that currently undermine confidence and cohesion within Europe.

His demise could lead to the restoration of International Norms. Putin’s actions have often violated international laws and norms. His removal could lead to a renewed commitment to uphold these principles, promoting a rules-based international order. This could reassure European nations about their sovereignty and territorial integrity, helping to secure peace and stability.

If NATO survives in the same format the next 4 years, then there is a need to strengthening NATO and EU cohesion. Putin’s aggressive stance has prompted NATO to strengthen its eastern flank, while the EU has sought to unify against perceived Russian threats. The removal of Putin could alleviate some of the existential fears that unify these alliances, allowing for a more strategic approach to security that could prioritise cooperation over militarisation.

The removal of his regime will diminish the Russian support for Authoritarian Regimes. Putin’s leadership has been characterised by a support for other authoritarian regimes, which destabilise regions within Europe and beyond. His removal might lead to a decrease in Russian backing for such regimes, promoting democratic governance and stability throughout Europe.

His removal will lead to a shift in domestic political Dynamics. The prospect of new leadership in Russia could foster a change in domestic politics, potentially leading to greater political pluralism and a more constructive relationship with the West. A Russia that is more politically stable and domestically focused is less likely to engage in aggressive foreign policies.

Energy Security Reassessment. The reliance on Russian energy exports has been a significant security concern for Europe. The removal of Putin could lead to a reorientation of energy policies in Europe, diversifying energy sources and reducing dependence on Russian oil and gas, thereby enhancing energy security.

Historical examples suggest that regime changes can lead to significant shifts in a nation’s foreign policy. If a new government is less nationalistic and militaristic, this could contribute to a more peaceful Europe in the long run.

Equipped to the hilt, Ukraine is in a strong position to contribute to the downfall of the Putin regime. With the Ukrainian military now within striking distance of Moscow, what they require is bold, visionary support from Europe.

conservative plans were not fully costed depended on rather suspect maths ( they were going to tank the election what ever happened so didn’t really need to do more to layout spending plans assuming high growth to pay for everything)
We need to wait for defence review really but the money had to come from somewhere at least now is a plan for getting to 2.5% in 2027/28 instead of possibly 2029/30.

The government has clarified 13.4 billion is the difference between defence spending of £66.3 billion in 2024/25, and the £79.7 billion it is now expected to increase to in 2027/28. (this is the NATO qualifying spend rather than the defence budget spend so different figures)
( depends if fiscal forecast is accurate/ thing like tariff barrier etc are not a factor with USA)
( its a bit of fudge as it assumes the government was going to freeze defence spending as a percentage – most people were expecting some defence spend increases with the defence review anyway)

Control the air control the battlespace. Investment needs to be focussed on airspace dominance – IADS, drones, EW, additional FJ Squadrons. Ukraine has shown that more troops are irrelevant if they can get hammered above from FPV and fibre optic FPVs. Airspace needs complete lockdown – without it ground forces are toast.

Let’s really consider what 2.5% means..and remember we have not even hit 2.29 % even with the increases we have so far..

“Maria Eagle, the Minister of State for Defence, responded on 13 November 2024 with the following figures: For 2024-25, “total defence spending is expected to be £64.4 billion, equating to 2.29% of GDP. This will rise to £67.7 billion in 2025-26, or 2.30% of GDP.”

So the 0.01% change between 2024/25 and 25/26 equated to 3.3 billion pounds. We will be spending 67.7 billion in 25/26 then by 2027/28 it will jump by 0.2% GDP this will take it to over 80 billion a year.. I’m not sure where everyone is getting it’s an extra 5-6 billion when we moved the budget by 3.3 billion just to move from 2.29 to 2.30 percentage of GDP.

This is a hell of a lot of money it’s many 10s of billions to the equipment budget in this decade if we move to 3% in 2030 we will have an extra 10-20 billion in the equipment budget every year..

Let’s also remember that the 2.3% calculation of 67 billion for next year also includes 3 billion of aid to Ukraine..if Ukraine is at peace we still need to spend that now freed up 3 billion on defence to maintain the promise of 2.5%

Essentially in 25/26 the MOD will have 64 billion to spend on itself in 2027/28 if there is peace and the whole defence budge is spent on our forces it will have around 80 billion to spend on itself…that’s an extra 16 billion a year to put that into some perspective for everyone who is saying it’s pittance

The cost of running a light role infantry brigade is 150million a year..
The cost of running a armoured brigade ( including all CS and CSS) 300million a year
The cost of 70 more challenger 3s would be .5 billion
The cost of 100 more typhoons 8 billion
The cost of 20,000 typhoon flight hours per year ( that’s doubling typhoon flights ) 4 billion per year
The cost of a good frigate with full ASW and area defence capability .6 billion
The cost of running a frigate 11 million per year

So 2.5% GDP is huge

if we moved to 3% GDP in 2031/32 the defence budget would top 100 million.

No matter which way you look at the figures it is an improvement. Yas I would rather see the extra 13 billion per year but to be honest I still like an extra 13billion between now and 2027. I have been reading the posts about possible use of this extra funding and that no long term items such as ships or aircraft would be bought with this extra funding.

Lets look at it in a few diffrent ways, if you do not have enough modern kit then peoplewill not want to serve. People serve with one thought off being able to play with the kit, be that com systems, tanks, planes, ships or very big shooty bang sticks. They do not join to sit around in base all day playing snakes and ladders. So lets look at big ticket items, you do not pay up front, So if the RN knew that over the period from 2025-2027 they will get an extra 5 billion they could then say right 40% of that is for new construction above what is in the pipe line so that is 2 billion for new construction over the period 2025-2027 that can buy say an extra 5 T31s, or 2 T26s or 2 LHDs. The extra 3 billion could go to manpower/wages and operational costs. The same with the RAF 5 billion could get you 20 fast jets plus manpowr/ wages and operational cost. What you would also find is that with the extra numbers of equipment there would be a lower cost of repair as the kit will not be used as hard.

However, my personnal thinking is that the RN should get an extra 1 billion+ inflation per year for 10 years new equipment above the current plans of 8 T28s, 5 T31s, 6 T83s, 6 MRSS and 3 FSS, 4 SSBNs and 7 SSNs. Plus an extra 1 billion + inflation rising to 4 billion over the same period for manpower/wages and operational costs. It takes time to build ships and subs, so the RN has time to get and train crew. Also they will not have all the operational costs up front. So over a ten year period with an extra 1 billion +inflation per year for additional hulls the RN could fund 4 T32s, 2 LHDs, 2 T26 and 2 SSNs. That gives a fleet combat strength of 2 carriers, 2 LHDs, 6 T83s, 10 T26s, 5 T31s, 4 T32s and 9 SSNs.

The same in many ways with the RAF, if they were to place an order now for either Typhoon or F35B they would not be ready for at least the next 2 years. The RAF could start with the E-7 fairly quickly as it seems we have two radar suites available. We could also do something about our air to air tankers as they need a boom. We could also very quickly do something with Sky and Sea Guardian. It might sound like a stupid idea but possibly we could try and buy the F35B license for the F35B, the US concentrates on A and C the UK does the B. Just in case Trump and his side kick does something stupid and throws the toys out of the pram. GBAD should come under the control of the RAF Regt with 6-8 fire batteries of SAMP/T with the Aster 30 1 NT/Block 2 BMD and 12 fire batteries of CAMM ER/MR. I do wonder if the US moves away from Europe if Europe need to have long range strike aircraft? I for one am very much against the use of multi role combat aircraft such as the Typhoon for long range strike. First they need to refuel mid air this would sho up on an enemies radar system. Second they do not have the fire power so you need more aircraft to carry out the strike. A Typooh is good at the tactical level but strategic, I am not sure.

In many ways it is the Army that needs a full rebuilding, to start with a full armoured division of four tank regts of 56 MBTs each with 5 armoured infantry Ajax, Ares etc. These would be formed into three briagades, one with 2 MBT Regts and 1 Amoured Infantry Battalion and the other two would have one MBT Regt and two Armoured infantry Battalions These would be supported by an Art Brigade of 2 Regts of 155mm tracked guns and 1 Regt of M270s, 3 Regts of 16 Apaches nd a Logistic/Tech Brigade (Signals/Intel/REME/ Logistics Corp/ MPs etc). This Division would also need a GBAD of one fire battery of SAPM/T and 3 fire Batteries of CAMM-ER plus 2 Regts of Sky Ranger of 4 fire batteries ech.This Div would be the main support to Poland/Baltic States or if Europe could get themselves co-operationg then this Div combined with a French Armoured Div and possibly a Spainish/Italian Armoured Div could form the European Reserve Armoured Corp.
The second Division would be wheeled, based on Boxer with three Brigades each of three Regts plus an artillery brigade of RCH 155 and HIMARS/Elbit PULS. Airdefence would be based on CAMM and Sky Ranger.
The Third Division would be independent Brigades, eg Gurkha Brigade, Air Assault Brigade, A Brigade of Rangers/special forces and a Sea Assault Brigade (not Royal Marines). The Sea Assault Brigade would use the LHDs and with the RMs would carry out operations such as reinforcing Norway, Falkland type ops etc. The Sea Assault Brigade would have air support from the LHD.
I have not included tactical drones as this area is developing so quick I cannot work out what type of equipment/ tech support etc they need. Do they come with the artillery units, signal regts intel units.

This is the way I do see the future of the Army but it does mean bringing numbers back up to 100,000 troops. Yet better pay, more kit and clearly defined roles would possibly better recruitment and retension.

Some of these ides could be implemented fairly quickly and withing the current budget increase, some are longer term goals that can be implemented as long as we do not waste the budget. This is a ten year plan as it would take that long to get the RN back up to scratch. If we could get from the government the commitment that by 2030 it will be 3%GDP abd possibly by 2035 3.5% GDP then it is more than possible. What would halp even quicker is if the government would increase defence to the 3% and take the CAD back into the treasury.

Hold on! A bloody moment, please. Old Donald is making Vlad and Russia to be friends, if they are a friend to USA, then Russia can not be a threat. The US Pres accuses Ukraine of starting the war!! So how can Russia be a threat?! Is it not incongruent? Is UK breaking up with US?? It is not possible for Russia to be a threat to UK when Russia is a friend to Donald and US. Further more Russia has not threatened to annex Canada, Greenland. It does not bloody add up.

Interesting reading the 3 bullet points under the title ‘Strengthening the UKs Defence and Security’ there is no suggestion of increased manpower or combat platforms.

There is no ‘£13bn a year’, that figure just doesn’t compute.

Increasing defence spend from 2.34% to 2.5% will mean an extra £5 or 6bn a year. That is about a 10% increase. It will help to plug the black hole in the procurement budget, meaning a couple of projects currently stalled for money get the go ahead. It will fund some transformational spending on AI, drones, UUV and maybe some GBAD.

That’s about it, there isn’t the money for additional platforms.

If in 5 years time, the budget increases to 3%, that’s a different

I have been doing a bit more picking through the bones of what is published and I’m also feeling optimistic so a couple of points

In the press release it was stated

“spend 3% of GDP on defence in the next parliament” now this is very interesting..it’s not “to hit 3% spending by the end of the next parliament”.which could infact mean getting there in around 2035. Instead he has said “spend 3% in the next Parliament, that implies in the next Parliament 3% of GDP will be spend on defence across that parliament. For me this means that the 2.5% by 2027 is infact a waypoint to 3% for the next Parliament so I would expect we will see 2.6% for 2028, 2.7% for 2029 and 2.8% for 2030 ect.

The other really interesting bit was the deafening silence in regards to Diego Garcia..the PM simply completely ignored any questions related to this. This I think may be telling, there was no repudiation of criticism, there was no “ this is a good deal” or “even negotiations are ongoing “ just complete silence on the subject. To me that means there is a reversal on the winds for this and I suspect it’s going to be a Donald treat, as in “we will keep it for you and take the flack…what do we we get in return”.

I know i keep on about it, and they now seem to be talking about it, but I have yet to see any evidence of a joined-up Industrial Strategy that would be the new dawn of a UK re-idustrialization to keep defence expenditure and profits/IP in the UK to the wider benefit of the economy and population – rather than just paying American, German, or French invoices. The reality of what is coming down the track will be far more £dosh than is currently being banded about.

It took the uk government sometime but its finally happening, will it be to little to late for president trump?

Some very interest points in the data that aren’t explicitly made:
1) Starmer’s inclusion of intelligence spend, thus increasing total to 2.6% was a cleaver move straight after the big announcement. He’s paved the way for the figures to be counted differently, such that getting to 3% is only another 0.04%, which if course can be spent on MI5 etc rather than the MoD,
2) The reference to “advanced defence technology, including artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and space capabilities” – these are ALL dual-use technologies. Through notionally investing more in defence, UK can support growth in key tech industries as part of its industrial strategy whilst counting the money as defence spend. Certainly there’ll be defence benefits (e.g. MINERVA, ISTARI), but don’t be surprised if support for spaceports, UK launch capability, costs of rejoining Galileo etc are all counted in the 3.0% total too.
3) With the above, a 3.0% UK will likely only have forces slightly bigger than today, but far more drones, AI, space-based tech etc.

I think the confusion about how much new money defence will actually get stems from what the PM said:

‘That means spending £13.4bn more on defence every year from 2027’.

What he should have more precisely said is:

‘That means spending £13.4bn more THAN WE CURRENTLY DO BY 2027/8.

An increase to 2.5% works out at £5.4 bn a year, a bit short of Healey’s £6bn. The PM’s £13.4bn is arrived at thus;

2025/6 – The extra £3bn announced last autumn, less a bit that has been spent on wage rises so far, so about £2.6bn
2026/7 – Additional £5.4bn
2027/8 – Additional £5.4bn

Total: £13.4bn.

That will take defence spend from £59.8 bn to £73.2bn. That is an increase of 8% over current funding.

As mentioned, the current black hole in the defence budget is £17 bn, so the extra £13.4bn won’t quite cover the current equipment gap. It also has to fund the increased pay settlement, maybe inflation, maybe Chagos..Meaning there is likely to be no more money for additional.platforms or personnel.

It is a useful small increase that should hopefully prevent further equipment and personnel cuts and get some of the unfunded equipment programmes rolling.