The Prime Minister has announced the UK’s biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War, committing to raising expenditure to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament.
The move is part of a broader strategy to bolster national security, drive economic growth, and protect British interests amid rising global instability.
The announcement, made on 25 February 2025, comes on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, highlighting the UK’s commitment to countering emerging threats.
Strengthening the UK’s Defence and Security
Prime Minister Keir Starmer outlined the rationale for the increased spending, stating:
“It is my first duty as Prime Minister to keep our country safe. In an ever more dangerous world, increasing the resilience of our country so we can protect the British people, resist future shocks and bolster British interests, is vital.”
The additional funding aims to enhance the UK’s ability to deter threats, improve military capabilities, and support global stability. As part of this approach, the government will:
- Increase investment in advanced defence technology, including artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and space capabilities.
- Boost UK defence industry growth, sustaining over 430,000 jobs and strengthening manufacturing in regions across the country.
- Improve interoperability with allies, ensuring the UK remains a leading player in NATO and European security efforts.
Redefining Defence Spending
In addition to committing to 2.5% of GDP, the government has also updated the definition of defence spending to include contributions from the UK’s intelligence and security agencies, recognising their critical role in national defence. Under this new classification, the UK will now allocate 2.6% of GDP to defence by 2027.
Funding the Defence Increase
The rise in defence spending will be funded by a reduction in Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), cutting ODA contributions from 0.5% to 0.3% of Gross National Income (GNI). The Prime Minister emphasised that while this was a difficult decision, it reflects the evolving global threat landscape and ensures resources are directed towards securing Britain’s future.
Economic and Strategic Impact
The increase in defence funding is expected to strengthen the UK’s global leadership role and support long-term economic growth. In 2023-24, defence spending contributed significantly to regional economies, with the MoD investing:
- £7.1 billion in the South East
- £6.9 billion in the South West
- £3.8 billion in the North West
- £2.1 billion in Scotland
A new Defence Industrial Strategy, set to be unveiled later this year, will further align investment in research and development (R&D) with the UK’s national security priorities.
Next Steps
As part of the UK’s renewed security strategy, the government will publish a National Security Strategy following the Spring Statement in March, ahead of the NATO Summit in June. The Prime Minister is also set to travel to Washington D.C. this week to discuss UK-US defence cooperation with President Trump, reinforcing the strategic partnership between the two nations.
In short, the UK aims to modernise its Armed Forces, rebuild stockpiles, and accelerate the deployment of cutting-edge military capabilities.
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
0.1% of GDP is about £2.5bn, so the increase is £5bn. Do you know where Starmers £13/14bn by 2027 is coming from?
Isn’t it the amount of additional funds during this Parliament, so until the next election?
I don’t think so, Starmer is being quoted on the BBC as £13bn more per year by 2027. Parliament ends in 2029.
That’s how I calculate it too. The increase is £5.3bn a year, so 3 years to 2027/8 would total £15.9 bn – not far off the claimed £13.4bn. I seem to remember that we get an extra £2bn this year anyway, so that might explain the gap.
Yeah, that’s the cumulative amount but Starmer said £13bn a year extra per year, not £13bn extra over 3 years. I suspect he misspoke because £13bn a year extra by 2027 gets us much closer to the 3% figure
Working from home offers flexibility, allowing individuals to manage their schedules and avoid daily commutes. It promotes a comfortable work environment, but also requires strong self-discipline and time management skills. While it can boost productivity, maintaining a healthy work-life balance is essential to
prevent burnout….. 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
7.5bn is a 0.3% increase (including the Intelligence accounting), if he gives a good chunk of that in 2026 and full in 2027 it’s about right as 13/14bn extra by 2027, but not per year.
The institute of fiscal studies states the Starmers figure are off, quite where this 13 billion figure comes from a mystery.
I’d say he’s using Sunak mathematics. He’s adding inflation and growth (3.75%) on £66bn, which would be about £2.5bn this year, over the next two years (as it’s 2027) maybe £7bn, to the extra he’s actually adding, about £6.4bn, to get the £13.4bn. [All numbers guesstimated.] Of course he’d have to be very bullish about growth to get that number, but he said that’s exactly what he was.
I know that the UK has been spending more but, prior to Starmer’s announcement today, was the UK’s official defence spending target still the 2% NATA minimum? If yes then maybe his £13/14bn is based on targets – in theory if today’s announcement hadn’t been made the UK government would only have been committed to an amount equal to 2% of GDP so the increase in the commitment using your 0.1% figure does give £12.5bn per year looking just at minimum target not what is spent in reality. Add a bit of GDP growth by 2027 and allowing a bit… Read more »
Perhaps he was planning to reduce to 2% and the increase is on what he was going to spend?
The increase is confirmed as 13.7 billion.
GDP 2024 was £2,848 bn, so it’s a bit more than that.
These are GDP projections. I have not run the deltas.
Year, Projected GDP (£ billions)
2024, 2,850
2025 2,936
2026 3,024
2027 3,115
2028 3,209
2029 3,305
2030 3,404
The additional increase on top of the $5.5 billion is index linked inflation increase on the defence budget that would happen regardless of today’s increase. A little bit of creativity to help impress Trump.
They defence budget in 2yrs’ time would be £6-7bn more than it is now anyway, adding another ~£6bn reaches the number – or at least does when averaged over the rest of the parliament.
Agree, given the difficult economic circumstances the government has done exceptionally well to pull this off. It’s worth noting that their are also very hard limits to what can be spent on defence in the earn term, if we instantly went to 3% we would either have to draft a lot of people or we woukd be handing money back. You can’t just go out tomorrow and buy 100 Typhoons or 1000 Boxers.
An incremental rise by around 0.1% of GDP is about right.
0.1% per annum
I agree. If you go too fast too soon then you just waste money. Shame the ramp up didn’t start a few years back! There are things such as ammo and shell making machines etc that can be ordered for future needs. So Y1 you order the plant and T2 set it up and Y3 production etc – not a real example but demand signals are phased… There are missile parts that are long order and can be ordered once the cash flow curve is known. Main thing is to stop army spending all theirs on a big new shiny… Read more »
On shell making etc, can they not take the new Washington plant to a 2, 3 or 4 (ie weekend) shift system?
Most of the difficult economic circumstances have been created by Rachel Reeves. An increase in 2/3 years ? It’s another sound bite.
Really?
I’m pretty sure they were mainly a consequence of the Covid hangover and the war in Ukraine’s impact on fuel and other costs.
Must be very influential, these Reeves woman, to have achieved so much in such a short space of time…
I think we could Jim, if 3% kicked in this year, it would inform the SDSR, it would allow us to spend the vast amount needed to refurbish bases to bring them back into use.
Kinloss, Leuchars, Lyneham, Royal Navy and Army facilities etc, all would require billions to expand and modernise.
Think 30 escorts, 12 SSN’s, 12 Fighter squadrons, more transports, more helicopters, more soldiers, RN and RAF.
That would require a huge financial outlay.
Even if you wanted 12SSN it realistically takes more than a decade to make them….so you could spend some money now to ramp up for AUSUK etc…..but the cash curve won’t come out for a good while….
If you went to 3% tomorrow you would have to spend an extra £17.92 billion by the end of the year another extra £18 billion next year and so on. You could not buy a single frigate, armoured vehicle or airplane for at least two years as contracts take a minimum of that long and production takes years longer. So like I say you physically could not spend 3% and the MoD can’t just keep it in the bank .
Many caoex projects will be based on cash flow near neutral milestone payments.
Seeing is believing.
So they are adding departments to the definition of defence thus increasing the appearance of increasing defence spending, rather like Osbourne did with Trident & pensions? If they gave all.of the unemployed a broom with a knife on the end could. they then ‘include the benefits systems thus at a (brush)sttoke inrease the defence budget to about 20%…
The definition of defence spending has been defined since the early 1950’s
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm
The definition of defence spending used by NATO since the 1950’s has always included military pensions, etc, etc. Osborne just rather craftily aligned the U.K. definition closer to the NATO one.
(If the moderators ever get round to ‘moderating’ my previous post you’ll see the link to NATOs website that defines military spending.)
Too slow. But there are several things worse than GDP levels. The enormous waste, gold plating, bad choices…
Quite. Do we really need more admirals than ships, more horses than tanks etc etc…. .
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
Nope not in his speech just an “ambition to reach 3%” providing etc, etc, etc.
I am encouraged but far from pacified. It is a step in the right direction and if they NATO allies do as Mertz is proposing to help Britian and France pay for their nuclear deterrent in exchange for a NATO wide umbrella is also encouraging as long as it is syphoned off.
I don’t disagree with you it’s just that I think there does really need to be a bit of “the stick” to go with the Carrot”, prime examples are Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Italy and above all Canada. Trump advised them, Trump warned them to start to spend money on Defence. They did very little or nothing, so tell them in no uncertain terms that France and the UK will step and provide an alternative Nuclear umbrella but as they have done zilch on conventional defence they contribute the shortfall in their contribution or …..Stand alone. Biggest mistake the EU made… Read more »
Do you mean NATO?
As much as it annoys me that certain countries are serial under payers.,I do not see it in as black and white terms. Yes they need to be “ encouraged” to pay but kicking countries out is not the answer. They still have personnel to add to the fight and are not likely to be on the front line.
I do think that NATO needs to develop a Europe first doctorine to procurement,
Good luck telling trump that he should buy more European weapon systems!
Look at the Australian expierence…. tigers out, replaced with Apaches…. MRH90’s so bad they bulldozed them into landfill and replaced them with Blackhawks, which the MRH90’s were supposed to replace initially! I think European nations need to face the facts that American equipment, in general, does the job….
That is why we don’t need more EuroFudge products. Any European Common Defence fund is well worth avoiding as it will be administer by The Commission and so will just be large helpings of EuroFudge. We need to invest in our existing very good product lines. I have to disagree that US weapons always work or are magically better value. One of the problems with UK missile programs was the way they were run *previously*. SAMPSON CAMM and its various flavours CH3 Typhoon GCAP – or whatever it is called this week The existing Anglo-French land attach and AshM EW… Read more »
They’d have to pay a lot to the UK and France as they should, we would need to operate 6 SSBNs each to provide a useful PSN European deterrent of 12 subs 3 at sea at all times between UK and France.
Now is the time for our EU allies to fund that as both UK and France are recapitalising their SSBN fleets now/ soon.
That is what Macron is after and EU financing PANG.
So if he can get those two off the French balance sheet then he can spend it on conventional.
Which is logical.
If the other EU nations are benefitting from the nuclear umbrella then they need to pay a fair % of the umbrella’s costs. Otherwise they soaked by Putin’s Rain….well maybe not as it probably won’t work.
In FY 2023 /24 the US spent just over $1 trillion /3.4% on defence.
In march last year the US passed the 2025 defence budget into law at $849 billion. With f/cast GDP that’s effectively 2.9% and the GDP spend is expected to fall next year ss cash budget is forecast to only rise by a couple of $ billion while GDP keeps compounding. Medium term US is heading to 2.7 / 2.5% of GDP.
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 industrial capacity also determine the pace. Had uk decided to increase to 4% by year end, it would not be spent anyway.
People keep saying this but offer no evidence. Ask the defence primes if they could handle a few billion pounds more worth of orders. Ask BAE if it wants to close the UK Typhoon production line or if an order for new Typhoons would have been welcome? We could certainly have handled 2.5% this coming year. The delay of two years will cost the country overall as we will have to cut capabilities that we need, to pay for the new capabilities requested in the SDR, and then we’ll try to replace those capabilities in two years time when the… Read more »
Typhoons, yes. GBAD, yes. Ships, no.
Mmm we live on an island that cannot feed itself, insufficient natural resources nor power itself. How does GBAD or Typhoons help those small issues ? Yep they don’t as they all need to come via bulk sea freight, pipelines or cables which are protected by ships.
We have about 8 frigates in build.
AIUI 2 of those and an Astute are due to enter service in the next year.
Can these be pulled forward by a few months – that’s a difference within the likely time of the negotiation process?
The challenge is probably crews and recruitment.
@Matt W February 26, 2025 At 08:39
We have about 8 frigates in build.
We have 8 No T26 and 5 No T31 ordered and at various build stages. So 13 new frigates in total.
Hum… do you pay eurofighters at order at order or at delivery? True question.
I would expect milestone through order period. …
Tranche staged payments, just like everything else !
Do we really need more typhoons. Russian airforce has shown its unable to properly operated in a contested environment and European nations airforces today would significantly out number Russias. Ground forces and drones is where we need to invest heavily.
We do need more Typhoons, yes. If we only have barely 100 or so frontline Typhoons then any war against Russia is going to see losses – if not to their aircraft then to their GBAD. With so few aircraft, each aircraft lost will be a significant loss to our capabilities, and it’ll take months to produce a new aircraft to replace it, plus 3-4 years to train a new pilot, assuming he/she is lost with the aircraft. Look at the Falklands; we didn’t lose a single Harrier to enemy aircraft but we did to Argentine ground-based air defences, and… Read more »
How many jets has Russia realistically got left at this point, 100 is probably enough to take on their air force solo and we would never be doing it without allies also bringing combat jets. Air force doesn’t win a war, ground forces do. Only so much impact dropping bombs can do.
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.
The foreign aid cut is not necessarily a good thing. Soft power still matters. Along with the near complete axing of US aid, this will leave a void that the Chinese will rush to fill……
China has huge economic problems and are already overstretched. They are welcome to fund African Spice Girl tribute bands!
People on this board massively underestimate the value of soft power, perhaps because it’s so hard to quantify its effects, or spent on things they don’t like. Not only is it very cheap compared to high-technology military kit, but it is influential even in conditions of total peace and – here’s the key bit – effective on allies and neutrals, not just adversaries. None of it is spent to appease bleeding-heart liberals, it is spent in the furtherance of our nation’s interests and influence, even if it isn’t immediately obvious how. As for the value of soft power – look… Read more »
Agreed but China isn’t our main problem. If the us wants to abandon Europe they should not expect our support in their future proxy wars with China.
We might have to support our allies in the Pacific if there is a threat to the territorial integrity of Japan or Phillipines or even further afield Australia or New Zealand
Is it our problem? Where were those allies during the Falklands (New Zealand and exception) or where are they now with Ukraine, they consider it a European problem. The UK is not a global power any more and hasn’t been for my life time. Not saying we shouldn’t help if it comes to it but we have to do what is in our own economic interest just like they are doing now.
Also where were they during the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, token support at best.
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.
Still need to recruit and retain crews to put on them.
If we could lock the Norwegians in for a type 26 order, then order another batch for the Royal Navy, then everyone wins from the economies of scale for a large order…
A small batch of typhoons, to keep the production line ticking over with confirmation of the next batch of F35b’s would relatively quickly give the RAF a bit more mass…
A least the downward momentum on the defence budget has stopped….
We definitely need another batch of typhoons to replace/in addition to keeping the tranche 1. 2+ more T26 plus 5 more T31 would be a good start in my opinion.
Honestly, even three more Type 31 frigates would be huge, alongside the Norwegian contract.
It’s supposed to be an extra £13 billion a year, so perhaps 13 extra Type 26s? 😉
I’d probably go to Chile and a few others looking to sell 12 year old Type 31s from 2038 onwards. If we can get the sales we can move to continuous production without the HMT sucking wind through their teeth before asking, what if you can’t find a buyer?
BAe have ample capacity to build Typhoons. I am not sure there’s any spare ship building capacity in the short to medium term……
Agree. Although budget increase isn’t gigantic it can achieve a lot. I’d say push on with GCAP programme and Aukus Fund 2-3 more type 26 frigates and another 5 type 31s New tranche of typhoons AND retain tranche 1s until new tranche 4s come online. 5-6 more Poseidon MPAs Wedgetails order back upto 5 aircraft raft immediately Next batch of 36 (not 27) F35Bs ordered Missile load out for mk41 vls- systems- LRASM, ASROC, Sea Ceptor Quad packed SAMP/T X 6 initial batteries for GBAD and additional 3-4 batteries Land Ceptor. Radar guided guns and direct energy weapons plus mobile… Read more »
All good stuff. Trump’s done what Putin couldn’t ie convince the UK government to take defence mire seriously.
If we order more F35 ( which we need to for the carriers) we need to ensure they come with an isolation switch. Having them directly connected to Lockhead now makes me very nervous that they could be remotely disabled should our “ friend” in the Whitehouse decide it.
Proof that Lockheed Martin can “remotely disable” our jets? A link to a credible source will be sufficient…
If they can remotely disable ours, surely all it would require is a hack to disable theirs, therefore I don’t think such an option exists.
ALIS
BAE designed a chunk of the B variants electronics, it would have been hard to hide a shut down switch.
We know that the US can disable the F-16s that they delivered to Egypt and Jordan so they can not be used against Israel. Having the the F-35 being disabled will probably not be an issue for the UK but the US might cut us off from the supply chain etc.
I don’t think it’s possible to remotely disable our jets. This sounds like the same old nonsense about the US being the ones to authorise our use of nuclear weapons.
Lockheed Martin can’t disable the jets. What they can do is, on the order of Trump, or Musk, or some other moron, to refuse to upgrade our jets when the time comes for it – or charge us extortionately for any upgrades in future, which is more likely.
I would avoid F35s for now.
Can’t Trump turn those off at will, or impose geographical limits?
Yes but only if the Tooth fairy can find find the spare time to do so, with people nowadays eating sugar filled junk I think the F35 operators are safe.
Dya ever see HellBoy II…those tooth faries are evil £uk3r$….better than any drone I tell you!
The problem is, the 10 year equipment plan is already unaffordable. This increase might make it just about affordable. Let alone any increases in big ticket items like more Typhoons
Should be able to provide a modest boost to equipment numbers, I’ll believe it when I see it! If about half the new money goes on capital spending then that will be about £25bn over 10 years. I read the black hole is about £17bn, leaving about £8bn between the services over 10 years. That might be a couple of ships for rather Royal Navy, a small order of Typhoons for the RAF and additional air defence batteries for the Army.
Remember the equipment reform apparently will save “over 10 billion” over the next decade.
That alone would remove at least half of the black hole. Even more if you count the type 32s that never ever got any funding but was just a ‘idea’.
So that £25 billion, perhaps up to £10 billion would sort the black hole, ( 5 type 32s included, so direct uplift there) then £15 billion for more kit.
This is a huge amount.
8 billion could buy you 13 Evo FREMM equivalents it’s a huge number
What could 8 billion get you
70 more challenger 3s for .5 billion
500 APCs for .9 billion
5 more T31s for 2 billion
50 more typhoons for 3.5 billion
30 AW149a for 1.1 billion
Who’s going to crew them? First they need to work on recruitment.
I was taking about capital costs but in regards the the MBTs that extra 70 would simply maintain 3 type 56 regiments so no extra crews needed, the 500 APCs are needed to replace 50 year old vehicles so no crews needed, the 50 typhoons would simply allow the present squadron numbers to be maintained and keep a decent sustainment fleet of 30 aircraft so no crews needed and the extra order of 5 T31s will take a decade to build so it’s piss easy to find the crews…no point having crews for ships yiu have not build or ordered..you… Read more »
Don’t expect overnight orders for additional big tickets items like fast jets and Frigates.
I’m not so sure.
It will play well with Tangerine Man…
Particularly if we order some P8 & F35B and some Mk41 VLS for T31!
He likes biiiiiiig announcements – give him one!
Particularly as these are things we all know we need anyway.
I agree I think we will see the second F35b tranche ordered on Thursday for 78 aircraft… after all that does also support British industry.
Jon, 78 F-35Bs is a huge number. I was expecting an order of about 24.
Hi graham, I was not being very clear, I meant a second tranche to take the total up to 78 not a new order for 78..so around 30 aircraft.
Wasn’t there a hint recently that there might be an order for more Typhoons..?
It was reported on here, was it not?
Cheers CR
As I recall the call for a Typhoon order came from the unions; fair enough. The debate was about a couple of things: one was whether Typhoons (being better armed) was a better choice than F-35 for war in Europe and another was whether a Turkish order for Typhoons would be a more convenient way to secure BAE UK jobs and ensure continuity of skills through to Tempest, since it would leave us free to order more 5th gen F-35s
I’m not convinced we need more typhoons. Would massively prefer the money funnelled into boosting raw numbers of troops and sailors so we can actually deploy on mass if needed.
Maybe I should state i am not convinced that more I’d a priority, could always do with more
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.
GCHQ’s budget is about £3.7 billion, which is about 0.15%. That would likely account for the majority of the intelligence spend. Then again they may not be counting all GCHQ activity towards the total.
They already count GCHQ in the military budget
Do you have a source for that? GCHQ funding should be part of the SIA, I have not seen any evidence that the SIA was added to the core MoD budget.
Sorry, for clarification it’s not in the MOD budget but it is counted under the GDP % of military spending under NATO rules.
Hi Jim.
Concur. I read that a little while ago, at least, that some of the SIA is included.
The SIA is 3.6bn per year according to Google AI… Just under 0.15 of GDP. Depends on what’s moved over, whole account or military cooperation only.
I read that the new money is 0.2% of gdp and in addition to that the security services will count as defence, which make up about 0.1%. So existing 2.3% + 0.2 +0.1 = 2.6%. The accountants at the treasury no doubt insisted on that in order to get to 3% whilst reducing the amount of actual new cash.
0.17% for defence only.
So we are spending 52 billion Pounds this FY?
It is expected to be £57bn this year. The increase is not until 2027 onwards.
Listen to the speech it is 2.5% by 2027 ! BBC iPlayer.
I wonder if some of the new money will arrive as early as the new financial year in April. The total increase will need to completed by the end of next year, if Starmer is to keep to his timetable.
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… Read more »
The Germans (Prussians) came in handy at Waterloo.
I heard a German Green MEP advocating for Germany spending 3.5% of GDP on defence. Changed times
The Greens have been keen on giving Taurus cruise-missiles to Ukraine.
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… Read more »
• “NATO first” doesn’t mean “NATO only” – we have the AUKUS commitment which U.K. Plc is going to do very well out of.
• Any peacekeeping operation in Ukraine would be financed from the Treasury’s contingency funds.
• It’ll impress the Orange Rage-Baby because he’s funding defence increases by taking money from international aid. Trump hates aid and one of the first things he did was shut-down USAID.
Let’s not deploy and put the money into real Ukrainian defence instead.
Agree. I don’t think we should deploy but we should sell Ukraine arms to better defend itself.
The UK should not deploy thousands of troops on an enduring commitment to Ukraine. Instead we should prepare for the inevitable 12-18 months post Ukraine peace deal when we all know Mad Vlad will simply re-equip, rearm, train, restock and go again. Next time the Baltics or Georgia or Ukraine….again.
Mr Bell, for an enduring peacekeeping operation we could comfortably deploy an all-regular, medium/heavy BG plus liaison HQ (skeleton brigade HQ) and National Support Element, say 1,000 troops in all, but might have to give up Op Cabrit in Estonia.That’s it.
Agree! Including, arming them with nuclear weapons. While Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, arming them with nuclear capabilities would change the strategic calculus significantly. However, this brings international complexities, including non-proliferation treaties and potential global repercussions. The good news is that Trump as he votes with North Korea, will not worry about Ukrainian bomb. These are difficult times!
A wonderfully phrased question.
They will still need to rearm even after a ceasefire.
The £3 billion going to Ukraine is part of the 2.3% we spend on defence and will also be incorporated in the new 2.5%. If the money stops going to Ukraine then it will have to be stent on UK defence or we would fail to make the pledge of 2.5%. However I believe that even if there was peace tomorrow the money would continue to be sent to Ukraine until 2030. However if Ukraine was no longer at war and the money being sent was not in the form of military aid then it could not be counted under… Read more »
Indeed..essentially I suspect that 3 billion a year would be used to pay for a commitment around a security support for Ukraine in the end it costs 150million to run a light infantry brigade in peace time 300million to run a heavy brigade in peace time 700milliion to run a flight of 4 typhoons in the air 24/7 in peace time 3 billion a year would buy a lot of UK military intervention. After all in wartime 5 billion a year allowed the following to be deployed 3500 miles away. For 10,000 troops on the ground 500 fast jet flight… Read more »
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… Read more »
No loss having the Refirm nutters AWOL, probably getting briefed at the Russian Embassy…
… along with Labour’s Trade Union paymasters?
Yeah, I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention the last 30 years but the Russians are not quite as left wing as previously.
You’re 30 years out of date. Another Russian Troll
I could see at least one Reform MP there and another spoke later and said he went out for a comfort break during the SNP attack. Getting rather desperate when the parties attack Reform for going to the toilet. Nice to see Labour taking Reforms lead though and heading towards 3% using foreign aid money.
The Leeanderthal Man (my MP) was present.
Perhaps Nonny-Nonny0-Nigel was interviewing at RT for a new contract.
Sorry to burst your little bubble, Farage on his program tonight says he supports the Govts plan for the increase👍
He can hardly do otherwise.
He had this policy in 2014 when at UKIP.
And the last election in Reform.
Which was why the journalist put that to the PM, who now decides on the same idea to cut aid to pay. The PM then indulged in a bit of school playground stuff.
Interestingly, I, as a defence nut, talked to him myself about defence circa 2015 so I can only assume his ideas were genuine?
I think this is being overplayed, by design, as people see Reform as a threat to the established order.
Looking at the headlines, it’s worked.
Usual mud slinging.
If we are to send a peacekeeping force to Ukraine, then maybe keeping 15 of the tranche 1 Typhoons, with a low cost update, would provide the numbers. Same with adding an extra 30 or so Challenger 3 conversions, so we have the numbers for a peacekeeping force.
Extra conversions, if possible, would be great, it would also make a lot of sense to get BAE to retool for hull production of a slow roll-out of new C3 builds, not just for now but for any possible increase or future tank. We’d pay a premium for those of course, but it’s a premium that will need paid at some point.
It is surprising, disappointing and i would think probably unprecedented that a party leader would absent himself from the House when a major national defence statement is to be announced. It is our long parliamentary tradition that all sides of the House unite to support – or if they wish oppose – key defence and security matters. Farage let himself down and should apologise to the House when he manages to attend.
He was always going to be too lazy to be a worthwhile MP.
He’s probably the hardest working MP there. He regularly works 18 hour days and given Labour’s massive majority it hardly matters if he’s there or not. His supporters see that, his opponents don’t understand this concept and can only measure productivity by hours spent on the green benches. It was the same when he was an MEP – by far the hardest working and influential MEP but remainers coouldn’t fathom how this was so when he wasn’t in committee meetings.
I always thought he advocated for an increased defence budget….
He does.
Lee Anderson was present, so Reform did have an MP there.
Keeping all the tranche 1’s until 2030 has to be a no brainer. It’s the only way we can boost RAF numbers before 2028.
John, for a peacekeeping force we also urgently need to increase the armys manpower count.
Nope that’s not the scale of the rise…the 2.3 billion increase from this coming year to next year will raise the defence budget from 2.29% to 2.3 percent. “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.” When excluding expenditure related to Ukraine, “the figures adjust to £61.4 billion for 2024-25 and £64.7 billion for 2025-26, which corresponds to 2.18% and 2.19% of GDP,… Read more »
The £13bn figure has been widely discredited. The increase is just over £5bn.
Widely discredited by who…the only actual guide to how much the government will spend is by what the government actually states..the government has stated that for 2025/26 it will move total defence spending to 67 billion ( including 3 billion for Ukraine) and that will take us to 2.3%GDP…that’s 6 billion above 23/24 spend to get to 2.3% GDP…people are forgetting we have not yet even got to 2.29% GDP spend on Defense and even to get to 2.29% and then 2.30% was requiring annual increases of around 2-3 billion a year.
Widely discredited by who…the only actual guide to how much the government will spend is by what the government actually states..the government has stated that for 2025/26 it will move total defence spending to 67 billion ( including 3 billion for Ukraine) and that will take us to 2.3%GDP…that’s 6 billion above 23/24 spend to get to 2.3% GDP…people are forgetting we have not yet even got to 2.29% GDP spend on Defense and even to get to 2.29% and then 2.30% was requiring annual increases of around 2-3 billion a year
Cripes, the 3 bullet points at the top of the article say exactly where the new money is going to be spent. No mention of additional manpower or combat platforms.
No argument on the AI, kill chain stuff. The money spent on rebuilding the UK industrial base will increase: taken together with the interoperability objective suggests the possibility of, say UK manufacturing of Patria 6×6 ‘common European’ APC , for example. Other ideas that spring to mind are an increase of BAE shipbuilding capacity at Scotstoun and / or Appledore for example; maybe more CR3 and Yeovil Merlins; 155mm gun barrels for Boxer or more Archers? My guess is manpower will have to come from the reserves I think, ironic as the nation moves onto a war footing.
It isn’t a start. It’s the promise of a start. During the debate the hollowing out of the armed forces was blamed on the previous 14 years of Conservative policies. We really been reducing defence budgets since the Korean War, but the second worst of the hollowing out came in the last 40 years. Between 1985 (5.5%) and now (about 1.8% when we unfiddle the figures) we have cut two thirds of the defence budget, and where the budget goes our military eventually follows. So when was the worst of the hollowing out? It’s now, it’s always now. It’s John… Read more »
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… Read more »
J….what have you been drinking!!!! I’ll have a gallon of it.
Even half of that without further cuts and I’d bite your hand off. That seems like a money no object list, and as I mentioned above, 2.5% is full of stuff dragging the budget down. And I missed AUKUS and I recall 12 BILLION over a decade just to give BAES to develop GCAP, never mind buy it.
I’m waiting to see what else they cut, after their performance the other month.
Sorry to be downbeat.
I’m going all optimistic.. I even think somehow starmer is going to keep the Donald inside.. in the end it’s an 8.5% increase by, but I reckon from the tone of the whole debate and a few little things starmer mentioned that I suspect we are going to see an increase every year after that as well. I don’t think we will stop at 2.5% in 27 I think you will see new targets for 28 and 29 so it’s essentially an easy skip to 3% for the next term. So I would well see 2.8% by the time of… Read more »
Did not see the rest of it.
We will see starting in the SDSR.
Finally, we should stop remaining dependent on the USA, the leaders of the world see England as the canoe of the USA, and behind the scenes in Washington we say that to ourselves!
yes please Daniele, I’ll have a just pint too please-it’s a school night!
As much as I like everything I just read, it feels like that list is scratching the upper limit for what is even possible at 4%. You have to remember, 2.5% to 3% is ‘only’ a 20% increase.
The move from 2.3% to 3% is actually 30.4% it’s huge.
I also think people are forgetting the laws of efficiency… cheap was and is never efficient.. we had vastly diminishing returns on our smaller budget.. big budget brings bigger efficiencies.
It is more than that as you take DNE off.
So you go from 1.8% to 2.5% on conventional forces.
Which is a proper uplift.
I don’t think the increased expenditure will get even half of that – but do agree it would be nice. I especially think it’s time that the UK, France and hopefully a couple of other European nations boost our nuclear deterrent.
2.5% may be enough to stand still, if the SDR bill isn’t too high. It isn’t enough to buy anything extra at all.
We might get that if they doubled the defence budget. But at 3% you’re not going to see the purchase of extra, large expensive items, like ships or jets.
3% is about £20b extra at today’s prices, so I’d be a bit disappointed if it didn’t generate any real growth.
What have you been smoking? That list would be 50bn+ a year not a few quid down the back of the sofa. Lay off the glue.
Consider this my glum fellow commentariat .7% of GDP was 18.7 billion pounds in 2023 ..and you get an extra 3+ billion a year just standing still so its it’s going to be a lot more in 2027 so let’s look at the actual extra money… if we increase our percentage of defence spending by a .1 to .2,per year until we hit 3% GDP the loss to inflation is insignificant.. inflation is only an issue if we reduce the %GDP.. So actually how much cash are we talking 23/24 53.9 billion 24/25 56.9 billion 25/26 59.8 billion 26/27 67.6… Read more »
2.5% won’t cover a fraction of that…..
agreed Jonathan- think this would require circa 3% of gdp at least though?
I would agree with most of that but would add some form of ballistic missile defence.
Sorry – just not going to happen, the chiefs advised going to 2.5% would be just enough to prevent further cuts. So we’ll avoid those but in terms of ‘extras’ it’ll be filling capability gaps (Puma and assault ship replacements with AW149 and MRSS, the missing 2 E7s and, if we’re lucky, C140 replacement with 8 A400Ms) plus the delivery of existing programmes (Ajax, Boxer, Challenger 3, F35 Tranche 2, Seabed Operations Vessel, Mine Warfare Motherships, T26 and T31) and perhaps a few more Sky Sabres or something like SAMP/T. The rest will be restocking munitions and likely building our… Read more »
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.
Everything is financially shkaey right now. We have to put the top priorities of the SDR on a more sound footing, as best we can. Keep fingers crossed there are no large new priorities suggested. That’s about the best we can hope for..
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.
I can’t see that being all of the SIA, it would be a 1/3 cut. If it’s defence-only intelligence spending, then inclusion may be an actual money and/or capability bump.
Devil will absolutely be in the details with that one, maybe more so than with anything else as we can’t see the end results in ships, tanks, planes or on the parade square.
True. It may be that they’ll stop trying to fiddle the books and the budget will go to 3.1%, as an example. As/if we move towards 3%, there will have to be a realisation that wars cannot be fought purely off enablers, drones and cyber. There will, under current plans, absolutely need to be an increase in the things you reference. Anyway, I doubt we’ll get there. The 3% target by the mid 2030s is there to come into force after the Trump presidency. The hope will be that with him out of the window, there’ll be less feet being… Read more »
No I think he was clear the .1% is separate he said 2.5% in 2027 then a discussion to 3% and .1% extra for 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
No one is poking the bear. That’s Russian rhetorical and Russian propaganda intending to justify illegal invasions of sovereign nations Russia itself had a treaty guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty.
What’s really odd is that they still aren’t increasing it. April 2027 is over two years away.
Sorry but actions did the UK do to poke the diminished bear in 2010? seem to remember efforts from the west to improve relations back then, you seemed to forget even west helped clean up Russias decommissioned Nuclear subs when Russia could not afford to lol.
Sorry but actions did the UK do to poke the diminished bear in 2010? seem to remember efforts from the west to improve relations back then, you seemed to forget even west helped clean up Russia’s decommissioned Nuclear subs when Russia could not afford to.
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… Read more »
I’d say a more reasonable posture would be to remain ‘East of Suez’ but keep to the ‘West of Malacca’. Having a presence in the Middle East is very much worth while given how much unrest in ME affects Europe. Arming the entire Arabian peninsula also keeps our military industrial base healthy. All for a modest military force: one or two warships and a few minehunters, half a squadron of Typhoons, and maybe the occasional troop visit. Once you go further East however the calculus starts to change. The military commitment it would take to have a credible military force… Read more »
I agree our wider strategic interests are really north and south Atlantic as well as the Indian Ocean.. the pacific really holds little strategic value or interest to us if we are not directly supporting the US.
agreed Jonathan
I wonder if that might depend on our relationships with the EU and the CPTPP. If we find our trade with the CPTPP growing faster than our trade with the EU, we might decide that the Pacific is indeed of strategic value.
I think it’s really important to note you can have very good trade with little or no security interest, trade is more about soft power. Let’s be honest the US was pretty good at that approach with Europe until Japan decided to take a pop at them and our security requirements aligned for WW2 and started to align after that around fighting the world wide international communist movement..there are no more internationalist communists left… But to just trade your best bet is neural as you can be…India is the new best “not our issue guv, but buy our stuff” trading… Read more »
Don’t forget the UK is involved in defence agreements in the far east…. 5 powers agreement springs to mind….pretty sure Brunei/Oman etc etc would have some form of formal agreements as well…
I’d follow Canada’s habit and re-announce to Mr Chump the stuff we already have in the plan, such as the next 36 F35Bs, plus new supplied for tracked HIMARS etc.
“NATO first” doesn’t mean “only NATO”
which is what you’re interpreting
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.
SDR will let us know. One thing I’m hopeful for is extra jets and ships as unions there have a bit of sway over current government. Plus of course it’s a good idea regardless for growth, resiliency and a hundred other reasons.
Army is a case of fingers-crossed that there’s a plan somewhere.
For those thinking of voting for Reform, where was Farage during the announcement in parliament?
I voted Reform last time.
This is not something that will make me regret that vote, nor many others.
How many other important announcements have been made over the decades in the Commons when so and so MP that one is against was absent?
Would be interesting to see a study?
Is this the UKDJ or a UK politics journal?
I’m going back to military matters, but your pot stirring comment compelled me to post.
Sorry.
Not as if other parties have actually voted against defence increases is it? Sorry no more political points 🙃
“Is this the UKDJ or a UK politics journal?” The former is just the continuation of the latter by other means.
Yes, Clausewitz, lol. Sorry, but I find it fascinating when posters will be utterly anonymous on this site, all through the discussions on actual military affairs, orbats, purchases, capabilities, whatever, for weeks and months. And as soon as politics rears its head, or there is a chance to get a dig in, BANG. Debate starts, turns to arguments, and things often get nasty. And yes, going way back during “B” was as bad as the rest, and I too was OTT. Not any more, this site has grown in stature and status and is getting noticed by people who matter.… Read more »
Another Wedgetail would be nice, I believe the recommendation was for 3 but only 2 got ordered?
No, 5 radars were ordered but the order for airframes was cut to 3 so we have 2 radar sets sitting in a warehouse somewhere doing nothing.
No, 5 reduced to 3.
I think reducing the army to 70,000 is the biggest damage done to our forces dont you think Daniele?
No. Actually. As I favour a RN, RAF, Intelligence first posture. For the Army, it is the lack of CS CSS to get best use out of that figure. Whether we have 70k, 80k, 90k, without the right organisation and enablers what difference does it really make facing Russia when other NATO nations line up alongside us? An Army of 70k, well equipped, with enablers for its Brigades, is better than an 80k plus one without . An Army should be measured in deployable brigades and firepower, not just headcount. I feel we make a greater contribution with niche assets,… Read more »
Agree, with the army it should be tasked with providing 7 fully deployable brigades with CS CSS for all brigades and the head count should be focused on delivering that as efficiently as possible..if the army can prove that’s not possible the headcount should be adjusted after the focused work.
Fair points as usual but I think we should be going back to 100K for battle fatigue, expand the Gurkha’s might be the quickest .
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… Read more »
Yes I don’t think the SDR announcements will be sexy enough for many. A focus on industry, logistics, and stocks. All sorely needed but do not feature in fantasy fleet lists.
In that regard, I’d be happy with a firm order for F35Bs, more air defence, under sea infrastructure protection, and IFVs for the army. Anything else will have to wait for more money.
If you believe over two years is nearly immediately ask yourself how much changed in the last two months? Do you still think two years almost immediate?
Starmer specifically stated 13-14 billion.. although in debates and political discourse they talk % of GDP in the proper treasury planning they only use actual amounts of money.. so it’s 14 billion in 2027+ the standard annual rises for inflation ( which is 3-5 billion a year for 25/26 and 26/27 ( so probably 20+ billion where we are now.. I have seen expert commentators stating it will be 80 billion total for 27 financial year).
It’s the politician management accountants pretending to be Treasury financial accountants. They should be considering purchasing power, but instead they want to work the cash flow because the numbers are bigger.
But purchasing power is odd in defence because a lot of it is related to how you manage programs and how long for and how much you built..80 milion has essentially purchased you a typhoon for the last 15 years even though inflation and GDP levels have both increases around 2.5% per year. It’s the same with FREMM frigates there is not much difference in the cost of a FREMM purchased a decade ago as one ordered by Italy this year.
Agree. Although budget increase isn’t gigantic it can achieve a lot. I’d say push on with GCAP programme and Aukus Fund 2-3 more type 26 frigates and another 5 type 31s New tranche of typhoons AND retain tranche 1s until new tranche 4s come online. 5-6 more Poseidon MPAs Wedgetails order back upto 5 aircraft raft immediately Next batch of 36 (not 27) F35Bs ordered Missile load out for mk41 vls- systems- LRASM, ASROC, Sea Ceptor Quad packed SAMP/T X 6 initial batteries for GBAD and additional 3-4 batteries Land Ceptor. Radar guided guns and direct energy weapons plus mobile… Read more »
Macron is very good at one thing, at least, spending money… In medium, long term, French deficit should be around 3% and in any case it’s guaranteed by whole euro area. When Macron suggests Germany or else gets the French nuclear umbrella, it means others will have no other choice but to back French budget in case of financial crisis.
3% has entered the chat
Yes, yes, yes. Thank heavens it’s at least back on the agenda again.
£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)… Read more »
It isn’t £13bn extra year. The extra 0.2% is around £6bn. It isn’t clear how he arrived at the £13bn number, but it isn’t accurate. He may have gotten it mixed up with the total we spend on foreign aid. We were fearing additional cuts due to current plans not being fully funded. Hopefully that won’t happen and we will see an increase in mass, but it will be modest until the budget is upped again. It is possible that the increase to 3% may be planned properly with cross party consensus, then perhaps we’ll see some of the increases… Read more »
No the expert commentary is making it clear with the general i grow it will be a hell if a lot.. the defence budget grows 3 a year organically. Starmer stated a 14 billion increase purposely.
Wow ok, that changes things a lot!
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?
When you average it out over a decade growth on GDP and inflation tend to balance out so increasing the % of GDP should not be interpreted with inflation loss.. it’s not taking in all the dynamics its why defence spending goes up every year but has been reducing in total GDP defence spending was only 28 billion in 2000 but was about 2.5% by 2011 it was 45 billion but only about 2.2% of GDP. By the 2030s 3% of GDP will be well over 100 billion…
Yes, but what will it buy? The purchasing power of the pound goes down over time. My guess is that this extra cash fills the already announced equipment funding gap, but not much more.
Well as to that, it’s the other side of the equation the Italian navy just ordered 2 FREMM EVO for around .6 billion each ( cutting edge ASW, with area defence and ABM capabilities).now the original FREMMS with far less capability still cost .5 billion a decade previously… so the Italian navy has managed to keep ship cost inflated down… the French ordered 530 good APCs for .9 billion.. we can purchase challenger 3s for around 5 million each so we could get that remaining 70 challenger 2s converted to 3s for say .4 billion .. giving us the ability… Read more »
Longer production runs don’t always make for a cheaper ticket price. A new Typhoon still cost 80+M after 20+ years of production.
Yes Robert but remember that 80 million 20 years later is far less money than 80 million 20 years ago…so if they price stays close to the same over a long run it’s actually a lot cheaper…
@Robert It’s not the same Typhoon you are comparing between Tranche1 and Tranche 4.
Latest price I can find for a Eurofighter is in the 140 million Euro range. However, a simple update of our remaining tranche 1 Typhoon could be done for around 10 million Euro each.
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.
You do know a third of that aid gets spent in the U.K. right?
Including on housing migrants for the years it takes to process their applications. Well Starmer wants to cut that bit, and I can’t fault him.
Yes fat salaries & bonuses for the usual suspects.
Agree. I know it was inevitable that the lefties would start screaming after this announcement but the press lapped it up last night. Every blinking news channel had someone lefty and angry about this ranting on TV. I’m sorry. Go talk toTrump and the Americans. They’ve caused all this. Americas cut to US Aid is much much worse than our cut to a poorly coordinated and wasteful foreign aid budget. It’s not time for funding schemes in foreign lands it’s time to arm up, re equip and prepare as Putin wants a new Russian empire, President Xi wants a new… Read more »
The lefties were only complaining as their very well paid jobs in the charity sector were going. Who the hell wants to pay for bearded men in far flung places to do flower arranging in women’s clothes? I mean this is the extent of the farcical foreign aid budget…soft power…I can’t believe anyone with half a brain cell believes in soft power…. If the lefties are screaming about someone taking away their toys to do something useful then count me in :))
To repeat my comment from above: people on this board massively underestimate the value of soft power, perhaps because it’s so hard to quantify its effects, or spent on things they don’t like. Not only is it very cheap compared to high-technology military kit, but it is influential even in conditions of total peace and – here’s the key bit – effective on allies and neutrals, not just adversaries. None of it is spent to appease bleeding-heart wokies, it is spent in the furtherance of our nation’s interests and influence, even if it isn’t immediately obvious how. Just because you… Read more »
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
Hi Andrew because GDP is on trend always going up.. and how you work it varies… you can only really measure % of GDP a good financial year after the year in question so what starmer actually stated was we will increase defence spending in 2027 by 14 billion.. most expert commentators also noted that defence spending would be in the mid 65 billions at that point anyway even without committing more of a GDP % so potentially you may see the defence budget hit 80 billion in 27/28 if 2.5% is committed.. remember in 2000 2.5% was 28 billion… Read more »
Hi Jonathan,
Sure but as the defence sec even said today its word salad.
Real increase is ~5.7bn. The rest is accounting for inflation and not an actual increase.
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…… Read more »
Thanks mate.
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… Read more »
On Blackhawk, I’ve always supported a quick OTS buy, years ago, I thought it would be cheaper.
But if things have now changed to the extent that the US steps back, then yes, try to buy British or European as much as possible.
On Chinook. Would you cancel the 14 new SF spec Chinook we are getting from the US? I wouldn’t. We have lots of in service US origin kit, and SF need the asset.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
The foreign aid budget also pays for UK overseas territories like the Falklands. It is money well spent. Just to many BS myths about why and how its spent.
No problem with the Falklands has that’s British .But when sending money to the likes of India who have their own Space programme etc ,that’s no Myth .
100% Robert.
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.… Read more »
How would you remove Putin? How without causing a general nuclear exchange would you remove him? Assuming you could remove him, can you guarantee his successor would be any less dangerous to your view of the world? Inquiring minds wish to know.
How? Interesting question. We could try dioxin, like Putin used in 2004 on Yushchenko, but he survived. So maybe Polonium like Puitin used to murder Litvinenko in 2006. Then we could starting an entire war like Putin did in Georgia in 2008 – probably overkill. Then there’s Gelsemium which induces a heart attack like Putin did to Perepilichny in 2012. We could send in little grey men to create an insurgency around Moscow and have him killed that way, like Putin did in the Donbass in 2014. Or how about Novichok poisoning like Dawn Sturgess in 2018 or the defenestrations… Read more »
It’s lovely idea, but going after Putin is daft – he’s an old man and will probably get whacked by one his ambitious acolytes at some point. Elliott is right: whatever comes after him should concern us greatly, especially if there’s a violent ending to his rule, and we could well end up with an even more volatile and revanchist Russia.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Stop doing that. Stop trying to introduce inflation and though it didn’t exist as was really an increase in purchasing capability. It’s bad enough that Prime Ministers do it. Let’s not descend to their level.
I’m using the actual amounts stated by government Jon..the government has stated that to actually hit 2.3% GDP in 2025/26 the defence budget will be 67 billion…that’s the baseline…that is what the government has already stated as a 2.3% baseline. When we are working out what the government will actually spend all we can do is take what the responsible ministers have said and extrapolate from their…to do anything else is a bit like after a job interest saying “well he said he’s offered me the job but I don’t believe him and will not believe him till the day… Read more »
It’s more like when your boss gives you a pay rise less than the rate of inflation and says: look at all this extra money, I hope you’ll work even harder now. It’s not a con in that the money is really there, it’s just not what the numbers alone imply. You have to account for growth and inflation to understand what it means.
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… Read more »