Britain’s defence spending to double to £100bn next year, says Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.
Wallace, who has been in the job since 2019, said he is delighted that after “30 or 40 years of defending against cuts” the Ministry of Defence is “actually going to grow” again. Warning against nostalgia, he told The Sunday Telegraph it would be a “total waste of time” to just reinstate troops to how they were in the 1980s.
In the interview, Mr Wallace disclosed that the Prime Minister had made clear her plan to increase defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP would be a priority for the Government.
“She said from day one, ‘be under no illusion, I mean it,’” Mr Wallace said.
“It’s one of her clear priorities as a Prime Minister that we are going to invest and spend the money.”
He said the pledge amounted to an annual defence budget of about £100 billion by 2030 – an increase of £52 billion on the current sum.
“It’s highly likely we will grow the Army but it might not be the places that your armchair generals want you to, because what we desperately need is to, for example, invest in our ISR capability. People will always talk about the regiments – ‘will you bring back the Rifles’, or whatever it is. We are more likely to be bringing about artillery batteries and more signals intelligence and more electric warfare, and certainly counter-UAV capabilities. If we can’t bring down those little drones, we are very vulnerable, no matter who you are.
My department has been so used to 30 or 40 years of defending against cuts or reconciling cuts with modern fighting, they’re going to have to get used to a completely different culture, which is we are actually going to grow, we’re going to actually change. Without the change, we were heading to below 2 per cent. But on current forecast, that’s roughly a defence budget of £100 billion in 2029-30. We’re currently on £48 billion. So that’s the difference. In eight years, that’s a huge amount.
What we have to work through is how we get there. In theory, you can do nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, boof, a massive dollop of cash at the end. Cumulatively it wouldn’t cost you very much at all except the last bit where you jump £52 billion. But you can’t really run a defence budget like that. The reality is we will be working with the Treasury to ensure we have a budget that grows to meet the threat and our ambitions.”
You can read the interview here.
Great if this actually comes in, bit you can’t help but feel this would be immediately reversed by a different government…..or even this one, should the economic downturn continue. Fingers crossed….
I would think the government No 10 etc would be all over this if it was an actual announcement.
While I don’t doubt this is what has been said to mr Wallace by the PM I will wait until I see mr Wallace with the truck loads of cash in hand before getting the bunting out.
His view is correct that a year on year steady increase is much more sensible than suddenly doubling the budget. But sensible is never governments strong point.
The plan is for a steady increase until 2030. That said, some emergency remedial purchases are called for ASAFP. I fear this will be too little too late as the damage has already passed the point of ….
ASAFP? …Freakin’ …? 🤔😁
Close.
Don’t forget the 1st part of her pledge is 2.5% of GDP by 2026 so we will likely see some increases next year for this. Hopefully to retain some retiring assets at least.
It’s a good starting point. She needs to also ringfence any increase so it can NEVER be reduced again.Only then can long term plans be made. Remember, people enlisting today for the next 22 years, need good prospects. Defence is the primary function of any government but especially HM Gov.
Don’t think there will be any money now Truss has destroyed the economy, repaying the the national debt is about to get very expensive as interest rates rise! Think there will be vote of no confidence in the Government soon !
Unlikely.
Britain’s defence spending to double to £100bn next year, says Defence Secretary Ben Wallace.’Next year’ ? He hasn’t said that anywhere. He has said 2030.
Do have to give a lot of credit to Ben Wallacs. Unlike the rest of this goverment, he seems to be competent and focused on doing the right thing rather than just building his own career. Was expecting him to be replaced by truss but seems he survived.
He pulled out of the running early doors when he was considered a favourite …and it seems he has been suitably rewarded accordingly.
My own estimate of Defense Secretary Ben Wallace’s capability and performance continues to increase over time. He is undoubtedly the maestro orchestrating seemingly disparate planning activities into a cohesive strategic vision. Believe RN’s future, especially submarine service, is assured. Between the Defense Review update, the announced six month trades study between surface and submarine fleet, AUKUS planning, updated UK shipbuilding plan, and being the principal proponent of the increase in defense expenditure, believe SSN(R) program may be expedited, w/ a flotilla of from 8-12 of the class envisioned. There will be commensurate investment in the nuclear support infrastructure and autonomous… Read more »
doubt SSN(R) would be expedited much, more likely merged under an AUKUS programme, but we won’t see any boats for 15yrs.
Reckon if we expand submarine fleet it’d be by reintroducing SSKs, 1/3 the price of Astute we could add a squadron of 6 for same as 2 SSNs and far sooner than SSN(R).
Agree on surface, maybe 1-2 more T31s but interim SSM and getting Wildcat ASW capability would be priority.
Mar 23 is set to become a defining moment. Most democratic governments have been forced by recent events to abandon the illusion of continuing peace and plan for rearmament. Perhaps a sad commentary on the human condition, but reality predictably bites. The US plans to increase SSN production to three boats/yr. Not inconceivable that Barrow shipyard could increase both in size and headcount over an extended period, supporting a more rapid build rate and larger sub fleet. RN sub fleet billets could also be expanded over time. The scope of a common program could rival that of the F-35.
We could do with the US supplying the F35B’s on order ASAP. Then perhaps people would be inclined to order a few up-engined and improved F35A’s too. We certainly need them.
As for Mr Wallace, you can have him in exchange for Pres Trump. Our shower of politicians could do with filling a few sacks with nuts and sitting on them. As at present they display an alarming lack of testicular fortitude.
Especially Block 4 mod. Closest parallel in animal kingdom might be the gestation of an elephant. 🤔
Done, no questions asked. No take-backs either. 😁
Also willing to trade Sleepy Joe straight up for Liz Truss. No? Perhaps include a future draft choice? Still, no? How about some cash on the side. Lots? Jeez you guys drive a hard bargain. What if we throw in Washington. D,C.? Please?
On behalf of a terrified nation I graciously decline the offer, on pain of death. We have enough corruption and selling access to office of our own, without importing the Beijing biden crime family. Much rather have “The Donald.” He actually lost money while in office and even refused to take the presidential salary. That must be a first. Imagine, a national leader determined to put the needs of his country first, in all matters. The turnaround in the US under his administration was incredible. Highest employment figures for all minority groups, regardless of ethnicity or skin colour. Booming economy… Read more »
It’s a pity that the first Government willing to increase defence spending will be the first government physically unable to do it. With the collapse in the pound and spike in GILT rates the Government will be physically unable to borrow more. Truss wont be in power after 2024 so zero chance of getting this extra money. These projections of Wallace also see the UK some how returning to GDP trend growth of 2.5% after they turned off migration. It’s just more Thatcher Voodoo economics and will leave the UK just as f**ked as the last time the tried this… Read more »
True. A significant amount will be eaten up by increased exchange costs for the US products that we are buying in over the next few years. I bet that they didn’t hedge the £ down at the current value, if the Treasury hedges at all. Plus raised energy costs.
We will be buying Tempest and other UK or EU stuff. Still spending with F35 and Posiedon in $.
yeap, def no speed up in f35 procurement rate, maybe the opposite. Extending the tranche 1 Typhoons would be a wise move and 50% airfame life remaining in these, could get another 17-18yrs from them.
Yes, just copy the off the shelf upgrades that Italy & Spain have done to their Tranche 1.
yeap, or even leave un-upgraded as per original plan? MoD bought 200 extra AMRAAMs for air defence role as T1s can mount Meteor.
I think some T1 parts are now hard to get, hence the fitting of some T2 &3 bits (where its a simple swap) on Italian & Spanish T1. Even the navigation upgrade is only 175,000 Euro per plane on Austrian T1.
Did Austria do this upgrade then? Their T1s are still available for sale, would be a quick boost to RAF stocks ahead of T1 upgrade programme, allow an extra sqn.
Austria was in touch with Leonardo over the T1 Nav upgrade. Austria is having a debate about raising defence capability since the Ukraine invasion. Their Typhoon may get an upgrade including BVR & air to ground weapons, but nothing was decided, last time I looked. They are also interested in a SAM system.
Any comments on the recent and ongoing recruitment efforts at jails, plus mobilisation of 300K plus more untrained drunks to die in Ukraine? Nice AKs being issued I see! Slight age, rust and serviceability issues. No comments about the tactical or strategic situations in Ukraine also from yourself. Just drab, low key dross comments regarding sweet fuck all. Shit rolling down hill I see.
I wonder if they have re issued “ninth company” to Russian cinemas?
Anything currently ordered and awaiting delivery will be at an agreed exchange rate at the time of the contract. It’s the next tranche that will be at a much depleted exchange rate and therefore MUCH more cost per item. … unless things improve …
1970/80s. No please. Don’t take us to those times.
1997-2001 is probably best time to aspire for. Happy times, new millennium happening, biggest worry was is the millennium dome going to be ready.
Ben Wallace has got the right idea but he’s scuppered. Kwateng’s mini budget has totally unsettled the markets, the £ and the $ are hovering above parity and the Bank of England is poised to pounce.
2023 will be a year of financial uncertainty and there’s a General Election potentially in the offing 2024. I predict Labour will win with a slim majority.
Nice idea Ben but you won’t be around in two years, let alone 8 years hence.
Unless Labour win back the Scottish seats from the SNP, I cannot see Labour getting a majority. They do look likely to be the biggest party in a hung Parliament though.
No, it would take a swing not thought possible to even get near a hung Parliament. Mid-term Labour always appear to be doing better. It’s once people think of the likes of Abbott, Sultana, Butler, Huq, Gardner, Lammy, Cordova & co. They come to their senses and stay at home.
Lets be realistic Starmer, Abbot, Lammy and might aswell bring Corbyn back to the fray is the exact thing keeping the Conservatives in power.
Don’t be so sure. The abolition of the 45% top tax rate & unlimited bonuses for bankers, has gone down like a lead balloon in the red wall seats the Conservatives need to keep to stay in power. No freeze on business rates will close many shops, pubs in red wall seats. We are at least a year out from a general election, but a hung parliament seems likely, bar some black swan event.
Agree with you John. I am fortunate to be a higher tax payer on a good year. I have no issue whatsoever with paying my fair share. I would have changed the entire system. Upper & lower rate of VAT. Low rate of 15% on the products everyone has (example; mobile phone, Sky, eating out) Higher rate of 25% of real luxuries. High end watches, Chanel bags, Jimmy Choo shoes (that type of Uber luxuries). Tax rates of 15% from those est ing less than £30k 20% up to £50k 40% from £50,001-£100k 45% from £100,001-£200k 50% from £200,001 upwards… Read more »
To be fair we do not need to actually borrow money…. We can print more like China and the US do. It does risk increasing inflation though but given the inflation we are currently seeing is almost purely down to increased energy prices rather than excessive consumer spending, I do not think it would cause a great deal of change. We printed more money during covid for this very reason. Plus if we ditched the stupid link between electricity prices and gas prices we could largely get rid of the high energy prices anyway (although MPs in high places have… Read more »
Argentina print money and their inflation is 70% !
A cheaper currency increases exports and investment! Couple that with less taxes. The UK already signed the most important deals, the Pound is still ahead of the Euro so expect to see more home grown food and energy. Two aspects already announced. Only shift will come by rebalancing trade away from US. The obvious issue is the debt, but that will get reduced by more investment. Don’t believe the papers or the Left wingers! Keep calm, carry on, save and invest. Never been a better time to buy British stocks. R
I’d be surprised if she’s still in power by the end of 2023 and we don’t see a snap election next year if it keeps going at this rate.
And in politics nothing happens ’til it happened.
Sometimes not even then !
Headline error I think.
Someone is aspiring to be the Guardian 😉
😂😂
Same headline is in the independent. It seems to all be coming from the telegraph interview. I’ve not read it. Don’t have a subscription. Maybe it will be wrapping tonight’s chippy
No mention of ‘next year’ in interview. 2030 was the date given by Wallace in interview. Made up story or printing mistake by Independent. Don’t know why UKDJ has gone with it.
The Telegraph firewall is not the most robust in the world, unless it has changed.
Just turn off Javascript.
Excellent news! I’m guessing we can all think of a million different things to spend the money on!
In the short-term my preference would be to get the basics right. Properly armed ships, decent logistics, upsize our artillery capability (HIMARS anyone?), order a few thousand more Boxers of all sorts of variants, drones and I would quite like to see a few dozen F35A’s.
Its ironic and stupid that they are talking about focus in istar after canning multiple platforms. Good use of public money.
However, if they can fix some of the core capability gaps that have been growing for years, that would be a massive plus. Get the basics right first then worry about additions, like invest in refurb accommodation, supplies so don’t have to constantly use platforms for parts and don’t have the mess of early afgan where soldiers didjt have enough body armour, ammo, radios etc.
The issue is the basics isn’t glamous and policticans like to announce shinny things.
Agreed Steve.
Sentry withdrawal I get as we have better coming, be it only 3. The usual issue is the gap to make a saving.
Sentinel cut I never agreed with. And the Army “MAS” capability was quietly cut by removing Defender and Islander, leaving the Shadows I believe to carry out both roles and the CR/SF mission too.
Agree with the sentiment – let’s get the stuff we’ve got working well & get the foundation right first.
Not sure ‘few thousand more boxers’ as I’d like to see a tracked IFV but that’s a whole other conversation.
Job 1 in my mind though is to decide; ‘what do we want to be capable of?’ Only once we answer that can they plan for what kit is needed.
😂
Hi Stu, “decide what do we want to be capable of?” Couldn’t agree more. You need three things at the strategic level to plan a sustainable defence capability. 1. What do we want to do? 2. What is the threat? 3. What can we afford to do? The last point is the reality check and for the last 30 to 40 years has dominated the decision making. Those three questions describe an interative process that should lead to a pretty stable situation IF you a reasonably stable set of answers. In recent years the answer to the first one has… Read more »
Surely those 3 questions were addressed by the IR and the subsequent Defence Command Paper? Are you just suggesting ‘A New Chapter’ in light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I find your comment about the army fighting wars it hadn’t planned for, interesting. It seems to me that nearly all wars the army has fought since 1945 Conversely the wars that were planned
at length and in terrific detail over many decades (eg. defence of W Germany in response to Soviet attack in the Cold War) – didn’t happen.
Hi Graham, The three questions were only addressed in the most high level manner in the review, although the Defence Command Paper went into a bit more detail, it is still necessary to go into much more detail when working on specific programmes and planning the equipment programme over the medium to long term. I used to work up scenarios for procurement programmes and there is a lot of policy stuff supporting the campaign ‘story’ lines that were worked up with a lot of very good military input. So basically what I am saying is that those questions need to… Read more »
Hi CR, I now see that a good sentence and a half is missing from my post – where I referenced the counter insurgency wars, with which I am very familiar – no matter. Having re-visited the IR and the subsequent Defence Command Paper, you are right. Detail in the latter is missing, particularly any sort of info about defence assumptions in general and Defence Planning Assumptions in particular. I can certainly bear witness that TELIC and HERRICK set the core equipment programme of the army back badly. I worked on a ‘heavy metal’ AFV support project that was canned… Read more »
Your last point there is key- that question hasn’t been answered in a coherent fashion by all the important parties for at least a decade now. If Government, Treasury, Army, Navy, and Air Force can’t all be on the same page, then we have a mess, no matter how big a budget we may or may not get.
100%
Great question but if we wait for an answer to that we’ll never get anything done. I think from the previous defence reviews, changing world politics, evolving technology – I just don’t think its possible to answer that in a really meaningful way.
Who’d have thought, that an un-stealthy, low cost, unsophisticated drone would eviscerate the Russian army or that their highly lauded air defence systems would be so ineffective? What other surprises are coming our way that will upend our assumptions?
I suppose the one capability we need to have is radical adaptability.
I’ve read much of previous defence reviews & they all fail to answer that question. It’s all word salad to be “dynamic” or “modular” or “leaner” or “efficient” blah blah blah. Without ever committing to a defined goal. I’m talking of a plain English answer. Take as an example the US, they have decided they want to be capable of ‘2 x concurrent Gulf War type conflicts with near peers in two theatres’. Obviously far to lofty for ourselves but if we (as a nation) can describe our answer in one or two sentences, this then informs everything else. E.g.… Read more »
Ok, i like that idea. You’re literally talking about capabilities but not in a equipment orientated fashion. Makes sense.
Yes. We always seem to be talking about ‘what tools do we need for the job’ and arguing over T31 fit, Ajax, number of C3 etc. but we havent defined ‘what’s the job?’ for ages.
If the job is “wire a house”, we will need some wire strippers & don’t need to waste time & money buying an excavator.
Hi Stu,
We did. And no you wouldn’t have read adout those assumptions in the Sunday papers.
Cheers CR
Yeah but we didn’t though. (BTW, I’m going to assume you weren’t condescending to me by assuming I only know what I know from the “Sunday Papers” so we can remain polite & constructive). Let us look at the SDSR from 2015 & it waffles on about “secure and prosperous United Kingdom, with global reach and influence” then talks about our “objectives” where we must “protect our people” and “Invest in agile, capable and globally deployable Armed Forces”… Well, 1 guy with a stick is “globally deployable” on EasyJet… “Objective 3 is to promote our prosperity – seizing opportunities, working… Read more »
Hi Stu, OK I can see how my comment could have been misunderstood and I apologise. Rest assured that I did not intend to suggest that you were anything other than well read… I was refering to the US making its assumptions public whilst ours were classified, at least they were when I was involved. Otherwise I agree with your comments it was political waffle for the most part… Hardly, surprising as it is a political document. The detailed assumptions and planning that goes on in the MoD (and I assume every other department) are kept in-house, formerly classified in… Read more »
Oh I see what you’re saying. Fair enough. I thought I must have misundertood. In which case, as you say, they keep it quiet so the can dodge questions. But there is mileage in making it public – they can hold the next Gov to account. I think if any politician wants to use ‘Defence’ as a tool in their next campaign, we (the public) should demand some stated commitments. Obviously we’re not asking for war plans, or which troops will go where, how we defend x etc. as you rightly say, classified & rightly so. They (Politicians) commit to… Read more »
I wouldn’t go for a few 1000 boxers. Get BAE/supacat to build and test a lightweight CVRT replacement and a heavier chassis that carry IFV, artillery, etc. the CVRT should be easy to deploy, carry a single rocket pod, troops, cannon, brimstone, command, recon, air defence etc. a basic front end costing less than £1m and pod the back end. Use stormer 30 as a start point if u want. Main thing keep it cheap and light. Then have the heavier chassis for warrior, FV432, AS90 replacement. With the experience gained from these a MBT can be next. It will… Read more »
A ‘few thousand more Boxers’ was Andrews idea. Think I’m with you on that one. As I mentioned though, we have to decide what we want to be capable of first. If that decision is ‘Have a small army capable of deploying a light Brigade Combat Team rapidly to engage in light warfare/counterinsurgency’, Boxers may be the answer. In my opinion though, if we want to be a ‘Global Britain’, I think we need to think of bigger force deployment capability. If/when we decide we want capability of Div strength deployment, now we can talk of the heavy kit we’ll… Read more »
I broadly agree, but the F-35A is a bad call. Buy more jump jets to support the carriers and accelerate Tempest, don’t add in an extra platform. This might be one of the few times we can seriously consider options for a big budget increase, but wasting them on diversifying platforms isn’t the way to go.
Not sure the A is diversifying. Heavy maintenance is done at certain locations, the cockpit is common along with a lot of software and systems. It’s likely no more diverse than comparing one Tranche of Typhoon to another, especiallywhen some get bew radars. The point of the F35 is to have common infrastructure to your allies and this was highlighted recently due to the new engine options being tabled wiuld change this. But that aside we need enough B to ensure carriers can operate to surge capacity so that’s 80+
The A variant is an unnecessary diversification that would massively increase logistics, maintenance and training costs for the RAF. The is far greater difference in parts between the different versions of the F35 than there is commonality.
This subject has been done to death here on this site hundreds of times.
So how many of those parts remain on the airframe and are only removed at during heavy maintenance? What’s important is what LRUs and consumables are different. That heavy maintenance is not done by the RAF or the FAA but at common facilities, one of the main facilities is on UK soil. So I would think the UK has pretty good access to the logistics and supply chain. If there so diverse how is it one facility can cover all three types? Such remarkably different airframes then surely have different facilties.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-chosen-as-a-global-f-35-repair-hub
The %s vary between the 3 variants, but it’s roughly; • 1/3 common parts to all 3 variants • 1/3 common with another variant, • 1/3 unique to a single variant I’d call changing the entire engine heavy maintenance, but the RAF/FAA do that. There is a repair hub in the U.K., but it’s not RAF but BAE operated and won’t be involved with C maintenance. As for access to logistics and supply train, if you’ve followed the history of the F35 you’d know this is probably THE most problematic area of the programme and why it has below expected… Read more »
Heavy maintenance usually references the depth you maintain to. So in civil you have A B and C checks. Engine swaps are not depot maintenance but you swapping one part. The engine then goes back to the depot where its goes through an MRO cycle. I don’t need to hold all the different parts for the 2 different engines. And it’s unlikely I’ll need to hold more engines because of a mixed fleet. Logistics system has issues and LM are addressing this. It’s nothing to do with the aircraft it’s the software that runs the Logistics and the issues with… Read more »
I think it could be done if in the right numbers, the RAF after all need a dedicated strike aircraft and the F35A should be it. Move all B’s to the navy and keep them around the numbers promised would be welcome.
Right numbers = vast quantities of money
Aircraft can be adapted for strike, cf Typhoon.
But they can’t be adapted from strike to air superiority, which is the RAF’s primary concern at the moment.
The RAF are more interested in Tempest for the superiority role than F35A as yet another strike option: and there isn’t the money for both.
With £100 billion a year budget there probably would be.
Not after inflation and currency fluctuations. And that £100bn is based on an assumption of what GDP will be by 2030…
I wouldn’t bet money on any financial forecast being correct that far ahead.
Especially not at the moment…
Cheers CR
Good old (or new) F35A they appear to be working well at Lakenheath. I don’t want to open that hornet’s nest again but if it makes sense for the World’s largest air force to mix their fleet of 35’s why was the argument against the RAF doing likewise so toxic?? Sadly, we won’t be witnessing the obvious increase of armour like more CH3 or even equivalent numbers of an alternative to Ajax if we have to buy off the shelf. Most of this new money will be silent and shrouded, so for someone who loves to see columns of new… Read more »
Simple answer is numbers. If we mix the fleet, then we have a number of planes that can not be used off the carrier’s. If we had sufficient jets to fill both carriers in case of need, then fine to go for the A, but we don’t. Even if the full current number is ordered, we still wouldn’t have enough, as not all planes would be available at any one time.
Agree, we need to get to around 90-100 Bs first.
100% agree. ‘A’ would be fine but for now, any money spent on F35 should be on the ‘B’ until carriers have enough.
We could go cray with this £100B though and get the ‘C’ 😄 EMALS anyone?
The repair facility for all F35s in Europe is in Wales… The main issue with an A procurement is fear one service will not get enough.
F35 is designed to interpolate with allies, so we can forward deploy our F35 with partners, that’s more limited with the B but its the very reason the US marine corps can deploy on our carriers and us on there’s if we choose to.
While the aircraft’s stealth, sensor and strike abilities are well known, its technical interoperability is a crucial factor in delivering consistent frontline capability, which strengthens US-led global alliances.
https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-international/why-engine-replacement-plan-would-hurt-f-35s-international-credentials/149574.article
Hi Expat
The maintenance facility is actually the old RAF Sealand, V close to the border.
Secondly, it concerns avionics only. It is the home of the MoDs DECA. Defence Electronics and Components Agency, once DASA.
Sorry, DARA, not “DASA” then DSG.
The suggestion that the F35B is more limited in its ability to “interpolate with allies” – I assume you mean interoperate – is not borne out by any facts whatsoever.
No only in that it logical to deploy them on ships. But as the aircraft has similar systems and logitic etc it can be operated with other allies.
No, it’s logical to deploy them from anyway they can take off from; carriers, runways, austere take-off locations.
The F35B has been shown to operate alongside with all of our allies, the F35A does not having any advantage in this area.
So we can deploy the B to where ever the allies have As deployed. Thanks for confirming the infrastructure is compatible between the 2 types.
You’re bonkers 😝
We can deploy any aircraft to where allies are operating the A, because we won’t use any A specific infrastructure. The fact they might have As there has nothing to do with it. We’ll take our own ground crew, spares and weapons for the B.
EXACTLY LIKE THE USMC DID WHEN THEY WERE ON HMS QE.
The only infrastructure we’d use is the canteen, bunks, and runway.
That’s not tge point of the D35, you may as we have a Typhoon or Rafe deployed.
We don’t have any D35s or any Rafes 😂
But the F35 that we do have can data share with a wide range of other aircraft and platforms, not just with other F35s.
Your link is old news too, as they’ve now found with modifications the AETP engine will fit the F35B as well.
I’m aware it’s old news just around a day old 😀but it emphasises that a mixed fleet is maintainable and the whole point of the F35 program is just that. You even argued that yourself in a previous post that th B is no less deployable with allies.
A mixed fleet obviously can be maintained if you have bottomless pockets like the USA. But if you have a limited budget like everyone else, then it’s unnecessary squandering of money.
The B is just as deployable as the A with our allies regardless of what aircraft they fly. Because regardless of aircraft, when we deploy aircraft we deploy ground crew and spares to support them.
Your circular arguments are making you dizzy and confused.
No circular argument I’ve supplied an article that states the F35 is an asset that is designed to interpolate with allies. I stated clearly UK has the facilities to maintain F35s in Wales. I’ve shown an appreciation of aviation maintenance software and how mixed fleets are managed. I’ve yet to this day find a single article that has analysis of the cost of mixed fleet. Yet there plenty of articles that explain the B is more expensive to buy and through life. Is there anything to support your case that running a balanced mixed fleet is too expensive? Whilst this… Read more »
I’d love to hear how the F35 “interpolates” 😂 The U.K. facility can maintain SOME aspects of the F35, such as the avionics which is the most common area of compatibility between the versions. It doesn’t do all maintenance. If we bought the B and A then we’d have to stock more spares. There is only 30% commonality between the versions, principally the avionics. You are aware there are major differences surely such as completely different wings? Oh have not not any research on the F35… Maintaining a mixed fleet of F35A and F35B is cheaper than maintaining two completely… Read more »
Never said you did not research the F35. You have very good knowledge of the program. I’m debating a particular point about mixed fleet F35 cost over single fleet. You need to relax a little tbh.stop thinking I’m insulting your intelligence, we’re having an educated debate I hope. If you have some analysis on mixed fleet running cost then share it. The most recent all-inclusive cost per tail per year for the F-35—fiscal 2021—was $4.1 million for the A model, which the Air Force uses; $6.8 million for the F-35B short takeoff vertical landing version; and $7.5 million for the… Read more »
The F35A’s at Lakenhearh will be flown and maintained by USAF not the RAF.
Same with when the USMC had F35Bs aboard HMS QE, they were maintained by US crews not RAF/FAA crews. Separate crews and spares for the British and American F35Bs.
The USAF is also the world’s largest and best funded air-force that’s why, closely followed by the United States Army Air and United States Naval Aviation branches!!
So I have opened the ‘A’ sore….sorry. We have mixed fleets in our history Phantom being just one, so it’s about getting the full fleet of 35B before the RAF could be supplied with 20 or so ‘A.’ That being the case the basic airframe design will still be manufactured for many years to come resulting in a possible procurement?
We have had dozens of battleships and hundreds of destroyers in our history too. Completely irrelevant.
It’s what’s appropriate now, with the available funding, and required abilities is what is important.
For the additional costs of supporting those 20 F35As, you’d be able to get far more F35Bs, when you consider OPEX and not just CAPEX.
Which airframe do you mean? The F35B or F35A airframe?
I meant F35A. I’d like to see what operational costs are between ‘A’ and ‘B’ variants and if the RAF would benefit over RN, the only problem is I doubt such numbers are available for public scrutiny.
I think the real question should be cost Vs performance, the F35A being superior in every category being Range, Speed, endurance and payload. The F35B will be more expensive to maintain being the most complex of the trio.
It’s inferior in one major way, it needs nice long runways.
and hence wouldn’t be used on the carriers which no one is suggesting so thats moot.
If the A isn’t needed due to Typhoons capabilities that’s fine – but if we are pinning our hopes on Tempest rather than the A…. well lets just hope Tempest doesn’t go the way of many previous attempts to kick-start or prolong our own aviation industry and/or defence industry * cough AJAX.
And here was me thinking that Ajax was picked because the MoD didn’t want to buy anything else from BAE, and was based on an offering already in production elsewhere.
yes based on – I was sort of refering to the fact that our ‘programs’ (of which the AJAX is merely the latest one) seem to go on ad infinitum and if we have to wait for Tempest to fill a gap we will be waiting for an awful long time (if ever) but yes maybe I shouldn’t have used AJAX due to the differing start points of that particular program – but Im sure you get my drift.
Are the USAF mixing their fleet of F-35s? I’m surprised. Which variant other than the A are they getting?
The USAF isn’t mixing their fleet… “maurice10” is confused.
It the USMC who have A and C. Japan also decided to add capability by adding the B to there existing A fleet.
Yes Japan will operate A and B. Because after having bought the A they decided they needed carrier capability, which meant buying the B. Major short-sighted cock-up made by someone there in their procurement strategy. The USMC had to buy two types due to the different ships they’re operating from. The amphibious assault ships don’t have cats and traps, so the B is for these – the bulk of the USMC purchase. But operating from USN super carriers it made sense to buy a comparatively small number of C types as the USN operate these from these carriers. Mixing Bs… Read more »
Your argument is even stronger. The USMC never wanted to operate the C but the USN who are responsible for providing the ships to move them around ‘persuaded’ them to buy some.
That makes sense, I’m sure the plan was originally for the USMC to just fly the B.
But it’s understandable the USN don’t want a mixed-fleet on one of their flat-tops. It would only be a matter of time before a part meant only for one variant was fitted to the wrong variant by mistake…
Correct but I meant US forces operate A & B.
Actually if you’re talking “US forces” then they operate A, B and C – in fact the US is the only country to operate the C. But then they have a near unlimited defence budget, so they can 🤷🏻♂️
!00% lets get the assets we have now up and working as they should be. Full Wing (36+ F35B’s) for the carrier at all times + a couple more for other roles. Too many different platforms just means more cash being spent on backup and not delivering real clout to the front line. The F35 is also a good ISR platform anyway. Lets keep them all up to date too. More subs please so we have at attack fleet of 12 with 10 being ready for sea. But the others need to sort themselves out too and lets delete the… Read more »
My thinking is if we have a few dozen A variants then that will free up the B’s for exclusive use for the Royal Navy, whilst the A is also a higher performing aircraft and cheaper to buy. I’m not an expert in the F35 so can’t give an informed opinion on the logistics but the UK does have an F35 maintenance facility and almost every other country that has F35 has the A variant, so I would imagine the supply chain, spare parts etc will be very mature.
Pilots are more valuable than planes. With a all F35B fleet all aircraft and all pilots are capable of carrier operations if required in emergencies. With F35A added to the mix, you reduce numbers of both.
The RAF is not asking for F35As, and they are the experts.
The supply chain is a mess, which is why availability is below promised targets – including for the USAF.
Your missing the point this is speculative if more cash is available. Yes everyone recognises we need at least the current order for the carriers, even the RAF. But if we’re increasing the budget which will include more pilots then should we consider a mix.
I’m not missing the point that this is all fantasy fleets speculation by armchair air-marshals. For a start you’re assuming the budget is increasing. Increasing the GDP % spend is not an increase in budget if GDP falls. Even if GDP grows, the purchasing power of the % increase might not increase or even be less than currently. A lot of any increase will be swallowed up increased OPEX, due to • inflation – which for the military will probably be above CPI, • increased salaries for the military to keep up with inflation, and • greater costs due to… Read more »
That’s a very negative outlook.
Perhaps can the carriers then dump the Bs altogether stick with just Typhoons.😀. After single fleet type is cheaper.
It’s called economics.
Or perhaps it would be better to trust the professionals whose job it is to make these decisions? The RAF and RN have done pretty good with their procurement decisions so far, unlike the Army…
Hmm OK so why did you just lead with that. I respectfully agree to disagree.
It’s a democracy, you have the right to be wrong.
What a gent you are. OK then let me correct you. The debate was still open on the A and B then the RAF were told choose between the Tempest and 148.F35.
I see, and your evidence that the RAF was forced to choose between Tempest and the F35A?… Even if you can supply it, which I doubt, as I’ve previously said the RAF would choose tempest. The F35 is a multirole aircraft, Tempest will be air superiority, which the future gap.
Or do you not differentiate between aircraft roles?
Don’t start triggering people with your common sense, there’s a lot of people on here that say the UK can’t do this that-not enough expertise, budget bla bla bla… literally the headline says we are going to be getting £100BILLION by 2030 why the hell can’t the navy now have its own F35B’S? If anything the RAF having its own fleet of F35A’s is a good thing because it protects its own status in that it brings something different to the field when we have these defence reviews and a lot of people push for it to be wound down… Read more »
All this talk of more planes. What is needed first is expanding the training fleet and ability to train more crews. No point getting aircraft without pilots to fly and maintainers to run them.
Typhoon tranche 1s soon to be stood down, plenty of pilots and maintainers available soon. The build rate of F35 allows plenty of time for crews to be trained up, if there’s a will there’s a way and if to be believed plenty of money soon.
Thank the RAF would be wise to hold on to tranche 1s for now 🤔
Sorry that’s think 😕
Spot on.
Hopefully, we won’t be ordering more of the APC boxer variants that we are currently procuring. The Army needs a decent IFV to replace the Warrior.
I would have preferred the army to have upgraded Warrior with WCSP but someone (who, I wonder?) decided to can the upgrade and instead buy Boxers for the armoured infantry. This is a follow-on order to an earlier one and I very much hope that a version is selected for the AI will feature a stabilised and highly lethal cannon.
AFAIK we are only buying the APC version of the Boxer which has a 12.5MG … Cannons and AT-missiles are wishful thinking.
The order for 500+ Boxers placed some years ago are for the MIV (was FRES UV) remit and are for the APC version with 12.5MG; these were for the 2 x Strike brigades (in the then-plan) which would also have Ajax in quantity to conduct recce and to contribute 30mm firepower. Since the time of that sales order, MoD has canned WCSP for the AI and decided to allow WR to wither on the vine and to be replaced at some time in the future by more Boxers. Given that the AI currently has 30mm equipped IFVs it would be… Read more »
Great news, unless Labour win and scrap it. We desperately need to move to 3% gdp. But most importantly we need to rebuild our defence industry and design and build our kit here, as well as export. We have to stop the sale of our defence companies. We have already sold Cobham and Ultra. It is insane! We have to stop buying things from abroad as it just ruins our trade deficit and destroys our industries. Even if we have to buy US kit, make sure it has UK tech in it and it is built here. Our entire force… Read more »
Why would Labour can it? Following the ukraine invasion all parties were talking of the need for increased spending. Eyes have well and truly been opened!
If we can build as much British equipment as possible then it’s a hard sell for Labour to scrap it.
Defence spending isn’t a black hole as some people think: it pours massive money into local economies and supports many British businesses. There could be a lot of well-paid, highly-skilled jobs that come out of this, on top of increased troop numbers.
It shouldn’t just be about jobs but efficiency creating exports. It’s not pumping money back into the economy if those who receive it by BMWs and Samsung TVs. After a few cycles all the money has left the country. The best way to counter this exporting.
True, and I agree. However, Labour’s thing is always about well-paid jobs for the working classes, which this would achieve in spades. Also, increasing defence spending allows our armed forces to buy more kit, which lowers the overall cost of it through efficiency and spreading R&D costs, which makes it more appealing for exports. If £100 billion a year were to continue long-term then when it comes to Tempest we might end up buying 250 or more of them, that helps lower the overall price, meaning Italy, Sweden and maybe Japan, who might be in on the development, will also… Read more »
“However, Labour’s thing is always about well-paid jobs for the working classes, which this would achieve in spades.”
The they become middle class and vote tory😀
Spot on. Labour are 90% funded by public sector trade unions. That’s their core vote these days. For Conservative its pensioners.
Conservatives get most of their funding from private businesses not pensioners. The party itself is made up heavily of pensioners though.
The Nnmber of public sector trade unionists are well under 4 mlliion.
That’s not much of a core vote😉.
At the last election the Tories got 13.9 million votes.
Even Mr Corbynski made 10.2 million.
Google ‘core’ 😉
Sounds terrible doesn’t it, the unions pushing up employee wellbeing and pay instead of all the money going to corporate profits and the very rich.
Realsitically either government could change their mind tomorrow and cut defense expenditure, after all most of the major cuts over the last century have come under a conservative government. I wouldn’t vote either way on defense, as it’s just not a core enough issue to trust either side.
Stop listening to the headless chickens on tv squawking about the sky falling down. The pound is pretty stable against every currency other than the dollar. Oil and gas prices are falling and the energy price cap will add to the fall in inflation. The pound dollar is at its lowest since 1985 have a look at where it’s been since then. A month from now they’ll be doing the same about something else.
It is SOP mate.
👍
Stable against which currency? Its fallen against all the major ones? Its even fallen against the rubel.
I never said anything about it not being stable, I just replied to the position that labour being linked to the unions being indicated as bad. In my view unions shouldn’t be linked to polictics and should be only focused on getting best for their members, but being linked doesn’t by itself mean bad.
Yeah don’t worry about it I had a blonde moment. I think I was trying to answer someone else but clicked on the wrong reply. 😳
Nope unions shouldn’t be aligned to an ideology they should also be lead by people who also understand business whilst ensuring employees get a fair deal. I doubt most of them understand profit and loss reports, business cases, cash flow etc
Are you sure about the stability. The pound seems pretty low against most currency’s
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/database/Rates.asp?TD=23&TM=Sep&TY=2022&into=GBP&rateview=A
Yeah it is but nothing unusual. Best way to judge is to get a chart for last 10 years or so. Currencies go up and down it’s no big deal most of the time. The only people who care are journos looking for a headline.
Trouble is unions have also participated in practices that end up with job cuts. They’ve never been institutions that are on board with automation or efficiency. These have traditionally been firce upon them once them industry was at tge brink.
I’m not sure that is fair. I think blame has been put onto unions, for industries that were going to fail anyway. Most of Europe has unions and does very well out of it. Just look at Germany, very strong unions and very successful companies.
I like the work council model that is in every European country other than the UK, and I don’t understand why it’s not.
Unions are relics, most of the private sector aren’t in them. If I don’t like the conditions where I work, I go and work for someone else. 🤷🏻♂️
Yeah this is the British approach but it’s very different in Europe, where employee rights are much better protected.
What employee rights have been dropped since Brexit?
Never said anything about brexit. Having worked in various European countries and the Uk, it’s clear we have less protections here.
We had common workers rights when in the EU. Sounded like you suggested we had less workers rights now.
Most corporate profits to the shareholders, a large portion of which are pension funds and not “the very rich”.
Fair point, just as a percentage of the average persons assets shares are a lot less than the wealthy, even taking account pension funds.
Pension funds invest in companies, not currency markets.
Besides, GBP is back 8c this morning. The Euro is also down the USD is only high because the Fed jacked everything up by a full point. When the next rate rise comes about in October, the GBP will gain 20c.
Its still well down against both currencies. Its recovered a little since the massive spike on the budget but if you look over the course of a year or month and it’s just sliding down.
Labour won’t cut it because there is nothing to cut. Truss won’t be in a job after 18 months so at most her spending increase will be 0.1% of GDP by the time she is gone. Any new PM be they Labour of Tory will halt all spending because by then we will be staring bankruptcy in the face. This is an 8 year spending commitment. It’s not even legal it’s just talk.
Under Corbyn that would have been the case, but I think Starmer has much more common sense and will support this defence spending boost.
Who knows, we will have to wait to the election and see what is in their manufastos, but even then it’s guess work as rarely are they fully followed.
At the min there are much bigger issues to base my vote on than defense. I will just hope that whoever wins doesn’t destroy any good work built.
Maybe the government/MOD should get more involved with industry like the Sheffield forgemasters buyout to protect a vital manufacturer.
ben wallace hopefully can bring Labour along with this, he is getting it out there that we need long term defence planning
Agreed.
Defence should not be a party political football.
Mind you, if the politicians were really Evidence Led as they all claim to be there wouldn’t be that much left for them to trash!
Cheers CR
We always usd to have a 10-year Equipment Plan. Not sure if thats still a thing.
Wallace has argued that the skills and knowledge should not be lost after a10 year plan. he mapped out what ships for instance were needed 20-30 years ahead, industry can see there is a good future, train a workforce, invest hopefully export. it would need politicians on all sides to see the advantage of having a long-term productive defense industry
The 10-year EP allocated money for each one of those years to fully endorsed projects.
Certainly concept work should look beyond 10 years to steer R&D and to cue Industry to conduct suitable Private Venture studies.
When I was a SO2(W) at RARDE Chertsey in 1990/91 we were working on unmanned ground vehicles concepts and Technology Demonstrators – with the exception of the Terrier CEV, none of the work we did then is yet embodied in an in-service equipment!
Excellent news, no doubt about it, and one I hope is honoured regardless of the next general election. The Defence Secretaries’ comment about improved artillery, ISR, and UAVs as focus areas is interesting and does make a lot of sense. Western forces are naturally very causality adverse, so an ability to have accurate battlefield intelligence, coupled with long range firepower and loitering weapons would be a very good choice. However I do think necessity means that more actual soldiers is likely too, with the natural requirement to have a slightly increased number of IFV & tanks. Of course whilst Ukraine… Read more »
That’s fantasy fleet time unfortunately. T45 will never happen, the focus now is on its successor. 3rd carrier not the remotest chance, not really needed anyway. A hurry up on f35 numbers would be good but there’s a bottleneck on block 4, we need full weapons support for them to be fully capable. Extra astures would be nice but realistically the build time is so long we’ll be in its successors time frame before any increase in numbers can be considered. RAF numbers could be built, there is the pain in arse limitation on getting pilot numbers trained though. The… Read more »
haha yes I know you’re quite right (let me indulge myself momentarily). But yes to be more conservative, T45 is unlikely, but potentially a couple of T26s with a more Air Defence focus? I’m also a big fan of the T31s and would like to see those numbers increased, they are the perfect ‘light frigate’ in my view, credible warships and more significant than an OPV, whilst freeing the heavier hitters. That should be doable? Similarly the RAF is probably ‘easier’ to upscale…but might require some assistance on training as the RAF has utterly failed to train pilots (I alluded… Read more »
One question that possibly needs to be asked is, do we need three carriers? The global reach of the Chinese Navy is still some time off but it’s coming and in scale! Once the Putin period is over the thorny issue of the RN having global clout becomes will need to be addressed. Currently, spread very thinly and out of phase with China’s build programme do we need a permanent third carrier group in the Pacific? Such a disposition would allow the First Sea Lord to monitor in combination with allies the potential future areas of tension. A third QE… Read more »
Ignore ‘becomes.’
More flattops, yes. More strike carriers, no. We could do with a class of small escort carriers to boost the capabilties of the carrier strike groups with catapult-launched drones, and the Littoral Response Groups with drone and helicopter cover.
Kind of like an LPH?
Yes, up to a point, but less focussed on helicopters and more on drones.
Jon, How many commandos can you get on/in a drone!
I agree, something that allows F35 and helicopters plus the ever-increasing drone fleets is the future.
Yes Maurice10. Drones are getting ever better and even in spite of UK industry & Armed Forces not investing in the building homemade versions. Every major nation is building their own fleet of mixed capability. How much is a drone compared to a manned version for ground/ship attack? Look at Turkey, from nowhere it has become the nation to supply the cheaper variants of platform usurping the US in many of the former Warsaw Pact nations. Even Iran has knocked something together. What has the UK done? BAE had a few test beds that the RN & RAF cancelled. We… Read more »
We need the third carrier so we can create a new Eastern Fleet based in Perth. 😀 in all seriousness though assuming we are willing to buy FSS from South Korean yards then a third CVF is very doable. Countries frequently build one off carriers. We did this ourselves with HMS Ocean which was a required invincible ordered more than a decade after the other 3.
It *might* have been an Invincible hull form but there was *nothing* else in common. Invincible’s had good damage control standards. Ocean had timber swing doors in some corridors. Big O had fortunes spent on her bringing her up to an acceptable damage control standard. Changing swing doors to bulkhead doors. Adding appropriate damage control drainage ways…. Things you couldn’t change single screw vs two and low reving big very civvy diesel as opposed to GT’s. Suppose there might have been something else similar to an Invincible – can’t think what though…. As she was delivered she was a death… Read more »
Fully agree over increased naval escorts and submarines. I disagree about a third carrier, though. I’d rather increase escorts for the two we have, increase subs and make sure we have a full complement of F-35Bs to operate from them.
Fully agree re: Typhoon. If we’re getting rid of 30 or so Tranche 1s this should be replaced by 60 or so Tranche 3s – enough to replace plus add 2 squadrons, and spares.
Pity the RAF have few spare pilots to fly them even if we got them. The training needs to be sorted so they get there before their pension age hits.
Being realistic even if we did buy an additional 60 Typhoons it would be 3-5 years before we got them all in service; enough time to train pilots.
Or even longer as both Spain and Germany have placed orders
If I really had to make a choice between the two I’d probably head towards the more escorts too, with better, and longer range abilities.
The Typhoons are I think are an excellent airframe and much easier (and cheaper) to acquire, hence a quick win in my view.
Steve I disagree with you on the question of a third carrier. With regard to the recent malfunction of HMS Prince of Wales, it was very lucky HMS Queen Elizabeth was available. Get a few more years in service and it would have been likely that she would have been heading for maintenance and not preparing for deployment. The reason that we have four missile submarines is to make sure that one is always available. Two of any type of warship means that you should have one available, but there will be times that you will not.
It would certainly be great to get a third carrier. However, I believe this should be a lower priority than other things. If we do get a full £100 billion per year and that is sustained (and sustainable) going forward, then a third carrier could be considered. Far higher priority, though, is getting enough escorts, with enough offensive firepower, for the two carriers we have. Really we need at least 24 escort ships for the two carriers. A third would require that to go up to at least 30, and for the increase to be high-end ships, too. With 3… Read more »
In useful terms it won’t give us double the bang for the buck though, inflation will eat up a fair chunk unfortunately. Don’t get too excited drawing up shopping lists.
Very true of course, but once inflation returns to historic norms (2-2.5%), and with the Government promising against 3% GDP these figures are quite robust. A mix between Ukraine, and Brexit has really pushed the Conservatives to look at Defence, the former for obvious reasons, and the latter for soft power influence, part of the ‘Global Britain’ franchise.
It’s 3% of GNP not a cash sum target. Inflation will have no impact on real spending.
It will if your currency tanks and your buying defence products in $
What if you’re selling defence products to customers who largely pay you in dollars ?
To sell defence products in £ you have to make them, looking around there are not many defence products in production in Britain right now and any industrial capacity we do have for things like surface ships or submarines is booked up for decades. When you have 3% unemployment you have close to no industrial capacity left to turn to defence production. Most if what we do make are components for other peoples defence products.
The main UK issue is productivity still.
We are 10-25% or so behind De / Fr / US. Though ahead of IT / Ca.
Yeah however being average in the G7 is pretty good in the bigger scheme of things. It also assumes everyone else’s numbers are correct and not a lie. GDP figures that all this is based on is full of so many assumptions.
Excellent news, although I don’t remember hearing him say 3% by next year?
Now match that Keir Starmer. You can see it coming. As the Tories finally wake up and spend on defence Labour get into power, prioritise social welfare, as they always will, and these increases are shelved or at best heavily reduced. As for what Wallace says, he’s right in my view. The RA. ISTAR. Logistics. More CS/CSS, the right infrastructure, more firepower for existing assets before the fantasy fleeters recreate BAOR. My shopping list, for what it is worth and for the fun of it: Army: Boxer armed properly and with more variants. RA: The priority. More precision firepower. Be… Read more »
I’d prefer to see more Typhoons as part of that, or at least retain current numbers e.g. replace the Tranche 1s with Tranche 3s.
Wouldn’t we all! I’m trying to keep feet on the ground excluding really big ticket items, excluding UK SAM ABM defence which would be one.
Agree, a T3 order would be great. Given the RAFs inability to get pilots through beyond OCU stage at present then just to maintain numbers.
Well, even if we ordered only to replace the T1s to maintain current numbers that would be something.
Why are they having such trouble getting pilots? Seriously, I’d give my right testicle to be able to be a fighter pilot! It’s what I wanted to do, growing up, but was then told I’m colourblind and needed glasses, so that never happened.
I read, and I’m no expert here, but as I understand it the big block is not so much in the Stage 1 and 2 MFTS but higher up at OCU level. The QFIs are too busy having to get requalified or too busy actually deploying as we have so few front line assets they cannot do their training job. More broadly, when the RAF goes from having 1 FTS and 3 FTS, two entire training schools on basic training and gets rid of the lot for a dozen Texan 2s there will undoubtedly be a drop in throughflow as… Read more »
Perhaps the politicians can enshrine the 3% figure in legislation. They seem to be able to do that for other targets……
Social programs were the very motivation to scrap TSR 2. What’s forgotten is the longer term impact of the RnD on these projects on the economy and export potential. Short term think usually wins the day
So goodbye Tempest IF starmer gets in.
It’s funny because if they had ever built TSR2 it would probably never have seen combat, it would have been pretty shit in the end and you would never have gotten the Tornado which turned out to be a much more useful much better aircraft built in the hundreds for export as well. Image trying to build an air defence variant of TSR 2. It would have looked like something out of the Thunderbirds.
I feel like the ukdj could do with an acronym list😅 some of those have completely lost me but totally agree with what I could understand
Sorry James, which ones? I use them as it is so much easier and the military/MoD use them too so its a habit.
“SSA & SA refurbed, POL & GPSS” were the ones I didn’t understand
SA. Storage Area. RAF stations have them to store munitions, usually separate from the rest of the station. SSA Special Storage Area. High security sites, used to store nukes. Those at RAF Wittering, Honington, Marham spring to mind. POL Petrol Oil Lubricants. Critical locations obviously. RAF fuel sites at RAF stations. The RN MoD have stand alone sites at Campbeltown, Loch Striven, Loch Ewe, also used by NATO, and the 3 HMNBs all have one. The Army use West Moors. GPSS. Government Pipeline Storage System. A network of pipelines that cover the country and link to RAF stations, and big… Read more »
Wow thank you for that comprehensive response, learn something new everyday. Really do know your stuff cheers
Pleasure. I’m a saddo “spotter” who likes to study the infrastructure. 😆
TSR2 is code for anyone over 60 that remembers the gold old days 😀
Oh I know all about that one😩
First flew Sept 27th 1964 ….so happy birthday to TSR2 for yesterday.
Do what I do and google it !
You won’t get any of that. Most of the money will go on the cockups already in the pipeline, increased pensions for the guilty, bailing out Ajax, the T45’s etc. What we will not get is more hardware – or soldiers, sailors or airmen. It will all go on paying more for what we buy from overseas, thanks to the sterling crisis.
More than anything we need more Astute
More Astutes are already ruled out and anything more in that vein will be SSN(R), but there’s a reasonable chance of an overall increase in numbers.
Thanks Jon – lets hope that our SSN build capability is adressed and that we get new facilities at Barrow. I would like to know how many Astute replacements will be planned.
Yeah Labour are real bad b**tards wanting to give money to the poor when the nation is facing its biggest cost of living crisis in half a century. Much better to give over paid bankers a massive tax cut and come up with some fantasy defence spending promises while you watch the national debt ballon and sterling tank like it’s the Suez crisis. Yeah f**k having the former head of the criminal prosecution service as PM . I’ll take a bunch of coked up newspaper columnist and Indian tax dodgers any day.
Yeah
That ideological rant did not answer any of my points on defence, or sooth my doubt on Labour on defence. For good reason.
So I’m not rising to that nonsense.
Not sure what you mean by rant, I was agreeing with everything you said 😀
🙄 I did not say “Yeah Labour are real bad b**tards wanting to give money to the poor” no matter how you twist my words Jim!
I stated facts that Labour prioritise social welfare and public services. I make no comment on that either way, beyond stating that obviously another priority like that will affect defence spending which “MAY” see this 3% commitment reduced.
Just today I read Labour will renationalise the railways. How much will that cost?
Almost nothing as they were never sold.
All the infrastructure and other hardware remains in Gov. ownership.
The management of the railways was put out to tender on various franchises and management contracts with very mixed results.
As those end Labour plan to resume direct management.
I know. I signal trains for Network Rail.
I’m not aware of the TOCs trains and staff remaining in government ownership.
Almost nothing? What are we waiting for!
The staff will just transfer back as direct management resumes. The rolling stock situation will vary as each agreement varies in its details. If the Gov. wants to play hardball though they do not have any real resale value abroad so they could buy them back very cheap.
That might be unfair on the TOCs that have taking their franchises seriously and invested which some have.
Interesting. 👍 Thanks for the detail.
“Yeah f**k having the former head of the criminal prosecution service as PM .”
Considering he spent some years trying to get one Jeremy Corbyn into power as PM, then, yes!! 😷
You mean he supported the party leader elected by the members instead of trying to stab him in the back at the first sign of weakness. Keir is Definitely not what we want in a leader then. Much better to get a political opportunist that was a Lib dem and anti monarchy then anti Brexit and then became the biggest royalist brexiteer going.
Current government has transcended populism and is now verging on Peronism.
Well on Truss, I wanted Mordaunt.
Ah, the members? Like all those anti NATO types? ( Young Labour ) or anti AUKUS ( LP Membership)
Your turn 😆
You see, it’s not so much Starmer, the moderate, acceptable face, than what lies beneath, that concerns me.
What Rachel Reeves? she is more right wing than most of the Tory’s.
No, to be fair I know sod all about her. I’d never heard of her until thus week. Is she?
Listening to members of momentum today spouting on everything,Starmer will have his hands tied big time IF they manage to get in!
Momentum. Heaven help us. Young Labour has been totally infiltrated.
I think we all could have agreed on Mordaunt. Yes it was those same members many of who joined for £3 then f**ked off after the damage was done but you go with the democratic system your in. I don’t support Brexit but I accept it because it’s democratic.
If anyone looks at the strength of the £ against the $ procuring from the US has just become really bad value. How on earth will be buy those F35s which have just gone up 20% in the last 6 months. I may be able to believe this statement if I felt it was funded but we all know it’s not. It won’t happen.
Julian, you party pooper…
Sad thing is nothing Kwarteng has done is funded as far as I can see. Hence the Pound taking a pounding on the markets. Inflation will go up as will interest rates to try and sure up the pound, probably wiping out most of the value of the tax cuts..!
Popularist short termist politics. All the parties are into it.
Ho hum
CR
The “Fiscal Event”, as they called it, has only succeeded in hastening the Tories’ demise. Reducing the basic rate of tax would have been a good plan, perhaps to 18%, but getting rid of the 45% rate and ending the cap on banker’s bonuses sends all the wrong messages to all those struggling to pay their bills. Including those in the “Red Wall” areas. It is as if Truss wants her stay in No 10 to end in 2024. She certainly has a big hill to climb to get a majority at the next GE. Unless Labour vow to match… Read more »
Should have kept the planned increase to 25% corporation tax, too.
I don’t think Labour will match the headline additional defence spending. I suspect that the ‘doubling to £1b ‘ number is just an electioneering trap set by the Tories. But neither do I think Starmer will be irresponsible with UK defence.
On the economy I see Sterling is falling. Since we import 50% of our food your grocery bill just went up even more. The beatings will continue until morale improves!
I tend to agree.
I also think that the housing market is under threat. There is growing pressure for the Bank of England to hold an emergency meeting of the MPC and hike base rates with forcasts suggesting 5% – 6% by the New Year. That would push many home owners over the edge.
That would really trash the Tories chance of winning in 2024…
Cheers CR
90-95% of new mortgages and 75%+ of the whole mortgage stock are on fixed rates, and there are only approx 11 million mortgages, so a rise in interest rates would have very little effect for quite a long time. IMO if it helped choke inflation off PDQ, that would be OK for a short period. After a decade of success in keeping house prices under reasonable control after Bliar / Brown let them treble in a decade, the Tories have spent the last 2 years inflating the demand side – which is completely crazy. LT is doing the same thing,… Read more »
Hi Matt, I would suggest that it depends on how many are coming up for renewal as apparently the most common is a two year fixed. They have also just said on the news that some lenders have withdrawing many of their mortgages because of the volatile markets! Inflation isn’t going to drop anytime soon, so interest rates could stay high for at least a couple of years. That could be enough to knock house prices in the next couple of years. We haven’t seen any wide spread business failures and job losses yet. I can’t see us avoiding job… Read more »
Ending the bonus cap (I assume not just bankers) should be a good move to keep high paying individuals and their business here, paying tax on bonuses here, when the EU has imposed the cap on all the countries they run.
Brexit distinctives are there to be used for UK advantage.
But I’d agree with you that La Truss is leaving her backside entirely exposed to a political spanking – which is completely unnecessary.
Details on supply side proposals are coming next month. We can judge them then. Good or ill.
I think we may have them, along with Krazy Kwarteng in khaki trousers, before them.
Don’t do drugs mate ‘Just say no’
I’m almost 3 years into a 5-year fixed term, renewing in late ’24. I’m watching it all nervously.
In my day the MOD used to buy forward dollars when possible so the day-to-day changes in the exchange rate had smaller effect against projected dollar spend. It all depends on how MOD are managing their dollar expenditures. However, this won’t help contracts yet to be signed.
Don’t ask silly economics questions like that your spoiling the buzz 😀 just get your copy of rule Britannia playing and crack out the PIMMS and all will be well.
So apart from abuse what else do you have to contribute ? PS Don’t worry I already know i’m a Nazi !
Hi David it may strike you to learn that there are those on the left of centre that are fiscally conservative and not ANTIFA right wing bashers who call anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi. They make up most of the Labour Party again these days. Currently you have a chancellor and a Prime minister with a child like grasp of economics, that have in just 8 days most of which government was closed due to the Queens funeral come up with the biggest package of tax cuts in half a century funded by the heights peace time borrowing… Read more »
The Government’s costing of the Energy Price Guarantee for households and non-domestic consumers – £60 billion over the next six months – means that borrowing this year is now on course to climb to £190 billion. At 7.5% of national income this would make it the third-highest peak in borrowing since the Second World War, after the Global Financial Crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Source IFS. mini budget response
Is that a counter argument? Are you trying to say this is an ok amount of borrowing? £190 billion is more than at any time excluding COVID. Sure it’s a lower in % of GDP terms than 2008 but then we were buying assets most of which we sold back for a profit. We are not fighting a war a pandemic or even a financial crisis. We have just borrowed a tonne of money because we have children in charge of government.
‘biggest package of tax cuts in half a century funded by the heights peace time borrowing in British history’ It isn’t even the highest peace time borrowing this decade. We may not be fighting a war in Ukraine but it isn’t unreasonable to call the energy catastrophe we and europe are going through isn’t comparable with 2008 or covid. ‘biggest package of tax cuts in half a century funded by the heights peace time borrowing in British history’ It isn’t even the highest peace time borrowing this decade. We may not be fighting a war in Ukraine but it isn’t… Read more »
I really, really wish Sunak had become our PM.
excellent news there is a huge amount of work to do to plug capability gaps that shouldn’t exist and to provide a more resilient armed forces capable of inflicting attrition on the enemy and being able to absorb some damage and loses with adequate kit and personnel to continue the fight. RN needs to be priority at this time- we need more war winning astute or SSNr should have a minimum of 10-12 attack subs type 26 must have come down in unit price with Australia and Canada ordering the type so lets get the order back up to 13… Read more »
Mr Bell, love your list!! Now where’s the cash register to tally all this up! Lol. Here’s hoping for the best outcome for the 🇬🇧 armed forces, the 🇬🇧 people and the PM. “In Liz we Truss”… groan… Lol 😁 🇬🇧 🇦🇺 🇳🇿
Just would add, some increased defensive armament to the carriers, both air and sub surface and upgrade the sonars and add MK41s on the T45s. Okay, I’ll stop here.
I think if the budget is around £100 billion a year that is a viable list- totally achievable. I think we need to face the reality that is Chinese expansionist drive in the 2030s. We have to be honest and prepare for that eventuality. China isn’t building a huge navy and armed forces for any other reason that an attempt to recapture Taiwan and then expand- probably into the Korean peninsula as well as settle a few old grudges with Japan and push America back across to their side of the pacific.
I can’t see British citizens being keen for our forces to fight and die to prevent China from invading Taiwan, but to be more than happy for a RN carrier group to periodically steam up to the South China Sea and ‘wag a finger’ and alternate with the USN doing the same thing.
I think there is a limit to what Global Britain can and should do.
I want to see defence funding increased, especially given rising challanges from Russia & China. But it seems insanity to be trying to cut taxes, mostly for the rich, while subsidising outrageous energy bill hikes & with inflation steadily bringing severe hardship to the public. If HMG was doing its job properly it would be dealing with minimising the price hikes, not waving them through & subsidising them or adding huge amounts of debt for future generations to pay. After 12 years of savage austerity leaving most services on their knees & wages held very low, there’s nothing left to… Read more »
Hi Frank, Yup, we are in a hole and still digging it seems. Every now and then our main political parties take an excursion to Never Never Land and this looks like Lis Truss is taking the Tories away on a fairy tale holiday. They have thrown the Tory economic play book out of the window. May be it will work. If it does my gast will never be so flabbered! Trickle down economics – I don’t believe it! If it worked the gap between rich and poor would naturally be stable. In the 1970’s it was about 10 to… Read more »
The quality of reporting in the media has been pretty poor when it comes to the budget. The additional 5% in the upper tax rate only brought in £2bn per annum, that’s nothing on the grand scale of things as people on this pay scale put it into their pension or received share options/dividends instead. It was just poor optics. Freezing the tax bands especially as wages will increase between 6 and 9% for many this year will bring in a lot more tax revenue than the 5% cut. Interest rates are going to keep rising probably faster than the… Read more »
The cut to 40% will probably raise revenue. When we cut the top rate from 50 to 45% the revenue from it rose.
From the IFS “The government says that cutting the top rate from 45% to 40% will cost about £2 billion per year. If no-one increased their declared taxable income in response to the change, we estimate that it would cost about £6 billion per year: hence, the government is assuming that roughly two-thirds of the mechanical reduction in revenue is recouped due to behavioural responses. That looks like a plausible estimate, but the main thing to emphasise is the large uncertainty around it: it is not implausible that it will cost significantly more than £2 billion. It might plausibly cost… Read more »
Scrapping the 45% income tax rate cost £2billion. By comparison many shops, pubs, restaurants, hotels, etc are looking at a 10 to 12% business rate rise, just when they can least afford it. Freezing business rates would have cost £800 million. I would have kept the 45% top tax rate, but perhaps raised the threshold from £150k to 180-200k. Then brought in the business rate freeze. Overall, it would have cost no more, perhaps even less.
How good is Wallace at sums? At current inflation rates, £100b in 2030 might be a real terms cut. 3% of GDP should be an increase,unless real GDP falls. But so much of our equipment budget is spent in $US .An F35 is now 35/40% dearer than a few months ago. I don’t believe this promised increase will materialise. Borrowing is out of control and at some point there will have to be real austerity (not the Cameron/Osborne pretend kind). I can ‘t see any politician cutting expenditure on benefits or NHS whilst increasing the defence budget, unless we are… Read more »
Yep, if we’re going to invest then defence exports do need to be a drive. £ is weak now we should be pushing defence exports hard.
I would say this assessment is too universally black.
I hope the budget will be much greater next year. The devil is in the details of course. We will see. Fingers crossed.
*massive expansion in army reserve. *Pay and facilities upgraded to help retention. *Future ASM to be speed up and for RAF/RN. *ABM across the triad to be THE priority. *Space assets to be expanded. *More ISTAR across the board. *Artillery to be equipped correctly. *Intelligence expanded. *More special forces. *Full restock on ammunition/missile’s. *Ajax to be sorted and costed accordingly. *Increase RN escorts maybe 4-6 more T26. *Full funding for Tempest and drone projects. It’s a lot but if we are smart can get decent returns if we are careful and don’t blow it all with rushed orders of say… Read more »
Great announcement but by 2030 ! New equipment takes years to purchase and deploy so realistically unless we buy overseas like Poland is doing we have a long lead time. But meanwhile fix what needs fixing and spend sensibly on what we really need to enable the future growth. In the short term I would do as follows :- 1. Maximise the fighting potential of what we already have or are presently building. Be that the RN issue of FFBNW (T45, T26, T31 etc). 2. Upgrade the support facilities for the RN, RAF and Army. Proper 24/7/365 Drydock and new… Read more »
Let’s look at the facts shall we. There is currently a 20 billion black hole in the budget. We need to deliver on the equipment that was already promised. The economy is in freeful with inflation rising the pound diving and interest rates on the up. Much of what we are buying is US kit. Procurement is a mess. We have 2 carrier groups on paper, F35s on trickle feed delivery and a lack of escorts, the Littoral group is far from what is actually expected, the army doesn’t even know what it needs to stay relevant and that is… Read more »
Maybe UK MOD can now get a move on, select the AW149, place an order and start manufacturing them in Blighty.
More sound bites. Labour have a good track record on defence when in government but it will up to them what they spend when they win in 2024.
Really? The cuts from 97 to 2010 suggest not. Johnson Beharry VC was so pissed off he refused to shake G Brown’s hand. I remember internet posters howling to the rooftops over Labour defence cuts. During Labours time, the Army took delivery of no armoured vehicles of any number save 400 Panther. No guns. No tanks. No APC. No IFV. Just UORs due to Afgan panic and things like small numbers of Terrier, Titan Trojan. The fast jet squadrons reduced from 23 to 12 and the RNs escort fleet from 35 to 23. SSN from 12 to 8. Do tell… Read more »
Anyone from the red side of the divide want to question any of that took place? Shall I go into even greater detail on Labours record on defence from 1997 to 2010?
I predict yawning silence….
You should have bet money on it. 😂
Yep, 7 hours in, they’ve all headed for the hills or like others I’ve fronted up are in hiding.
As our esteemed poster Airborne said to me, they dont like knowledge wafted in their faces. There are 2 in particular I’m still waiting to get back to me from many weeks ago. Hello!! ✋
Well said that man 😉
Well I was in BOAR in the 70s and it wasn’t till Maggie came in that it actually expanded.
Jacko, BAOR did not expand under Maggie. In 1982, 2 Armd Div were stripped of their armour and sent back to the UK becoming 2 Inf Div, albeit still being under command of 1 (BR) Corps.
My bad on the Maggie bit! but in’78’ 4 Armd div joined 1,2,3 Armd divs to form 20 BG,s in the Corp. 5th field force was also formed in Osnabruck I believe?? Probably where I got the expanding bit from. Anyway to us it seemed to get bigger 😄
We share some BAOR heritage.
I served (as an officer) with 2SG LAD in ’75, 4 Armd Wksp in ’82, 21 Engr Regt Wksp in ’83-84, 28 Engr Regt Wksp in ’90-’91. I had forgotten about 5th Field Force – I think that was a short lived formation.
BAOR always got smaller, bit by bit – as did the rest of the army.
I have always maintained, and never been challenged, that the Regular Army has been cut once or twice a decade since the end of the Korean War, right up to the present day!
We were about at the same time then 76/79 with 28 Amphibious Engineers then 82/86 with 32 Armoured Engineers. Didn’t get higher than full screw though😄
Great news, and Ben Wallace fills me with confidence.
However, strategically, we need to grow our own UK defence companies and not rely on American, German etc. industry. The current poor state of the £Stirling will only compound the problem. Spend money in the UK as it will then trickle down into UK pockets and ultimately we will get more bang-for-buck spent.
Great news if true – just off the top of my head,The British Army needs to sort out it’s AFV problems,focus also on Artillery/Long Range Fires,all Ch2 in the inventory to be upgraded to CH3.Royal Navy maybe increase T26 to 9 or 10 Ships,FSS and other support Ships sorted,SSN(R) aspire to 8 -10 Boats,RAF a modest top up of Typhoon mumbers in lieu of F35 Weapons integration delays,P8 fleet to increase to 12,E7 to 4 or 5,all doable i think without breaking the bank.
More E-7s, properly arm the T31s and T26s, more hulls.
Increase the number of front-line RAF jets by whatever solution makes most sense.
We are an island again now and we should focus on that. The Army is a lost cause, I fear.
Great but big risk that if things settle in Ukraine this is no longer a priority. How many times did we here Russia are no longer a threat! Yet here we are. Its entirely conceivable Labours green agenda will trump this and how if we’re going to have 100ks of green jobs will defence companies have the human resources to deliver the equipment. We don’t have enough qualified people today. So one has to give or we’re talking immigration to fill the void, but most defence jobs will be security cleared so UK nationals only. My view is its time… Read more »
Don’t want to sound miserable, just curious. If the current defence budget is about 2% and it increases by 1% to 3 % wouldn’t that take it to £72 billion. Not to mention this would be in 8 years time not next year. I’ve seen the headline £100 billion by next year all over the press but can’t work out where that figure came from.
£100bn comes from assumed growth and inflation between now and 2030.
Haven’t had a chance to read all the comments but am I alone in thinking that 100 billion in 8 years in real terms allowing for inflation compounding at current levels might not be as big an increase as it sounds. Even at 3% of GDP, in real terms that figure (GDP) may not be the same, one way or the other?
A better measure would be for example that we would have, “ceteris parabis”, an Army of 90 000, 25 RN escorts, 200 front line jets etc.
Ben Wallace has already stated that armchair generals (his words) will be disappointed as the focus will be on logistics and enablers, but with a significant uplift in artillery. Lets see, but anyone hoping for a big fantasy fleet style purchase may well be disappointed. As you say, inflation and the fall in the £ may well eat into much of the uplift. We should still see no more cuts and increases in capability in key areas though. Fingers crossed that Labour commits to similar spending as they may well be in power come January 2025 if current polls hold… Read more »
Hi geoff.
That is how HMG “get out of it”
They talk % of GDP rather than minimum number of *** enshrined in law.
The last few years saw much grandstanding of the “meeting 2%” while ignoring what was put in it! Such as Deterrent capital costs rather than purely operational costs. And pensions.
NATO uses % of GDP as it’s the best means of making sure a country sticks to something. It’s the hardest figure to manipulate.
Agreed. Not ideal or a sure indicator of funds for defence though, as it can rise and fall and all sorts put in it.
I’d like to see cross party agreement on what they want the UK to do, what is needed to achieve that, and then enshrine that in law.
Till then I fear defence is a political football, be it with Tory promises as you say might well never materialise or an incoming Labour government who then have differing polices. Defence needs long term sustainment, not done on the hoof.
Yeah I always wanted to see a cross party pledge in the same way they did with foreign aid writing 2.5% in to law.
Hi Daniele. Let’s hope that something good comes out of it. I am also a little nervous about the Tax cuts tactic-only time will tell but I think the currency markets have overreacted and we should see a correction fairly soon.
Up in the late 20’s here in Durban as we ease into spring and our first rains😎
I get some of it. I get the bankers bonus as the financial side of the City of London is a huge part of our economy. I read the EU is undercutting it as they are charging less to get banks to locate with them. So then we need to attract banks here to spend and tax them here. So a carrot.
I don’t agree with the 45% for highest earners being dropped as they obviously can afford to pay these bills and it sends out totally the wrong signal to the masses.
Anyone paying 45% tax is generally and over paid employee and typically a banker. I see the benefit in cutting corporation tax for sure but not the 45% tax bracket. People paying income tax rally have the ability to change much about what they are paying their is no marginal decision as you find with corporation tax.
The idea is lower tax rates mean uk is more attractive place to start or move a business. Ireland has done well with low tax rates attracting big US business the result has been a bigger tax take because with that businesses come a lot of high paid management. Trouble is UK parties are so opposed on how to run the economy the risk is in 2 years all this us undone so who’s going to relocate themselves or a business to the UK fir such a short spell? So my view its unlikely to make a difference. Banker bonus… Read more »
Yes, I get it. And I agree with it. Thanks for the more detailed explanation.
I think the original reason for capping bankers bonuses was that the lure of high bonuses encouraged high risk behaviour. When we were a member the EU viewed London, correctly, as a point of vulnerability for the EU. As I see it, the issue with encouraging foreign businesses to set up in the UK is that while in the short term that it increases prosperity, if you become reliant on that model, in the longterm it weakens democracy and even impacts cultural identity: Ireland is a good example. Despite their roots Sinn Fein is the largest party in Ireland because… Read more »
Post Brexit pound at lowest on Record I saw in the headlines Ben Wallace is probably reversing on his statement right now, the pound leading on the major powers in decline that’s saying something considering far right Italy owe the EU 2.7 trillion
Every currency on the planet is falling against the Dollar. It always happens when global politics and/or economics is in a crisis. It always ends sooner or later you just won’t hear about it when it does.
True but we are the coming off the worst of the major powers and that should not be happening.
We also have some of the lowest debt of the G7 I read, but that won’t form part of the medias or others “agenda” either will it when hysteria needs whipping up.
That’s some good news then.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/pound-sterling-travel-dollar-euro-b2175170.html
UBS economist reported as describing Truss government as a Doomsday Cult 🙁
I don’t do paywalls.
Paul Donovan never heard of him before now.
He’s on twitter i’d strongly recommend it. 😎😎
UK Defence receiving such a large increase in funding can be a bit of a double edged sword. Clearly not enough money is a well known problem when it comes to funding the desired/required capabilities. But equally receiving huge amounts of extra cash every year can also be a problem. The question is, how effectively can all that extra funding be spent? Can industry meet the challenges of ramping up production to meet delivery deadlines? I’ll give you an example, in recent times Defence here in Oz has been receiving significant increases year on year for a fair while now,… Read more »
Industry will invest in new capacity if it believes the demand will be there for what it will produce. That’s the $64.000 question we’re all arguing about. Truth is your guess is as good as ours. Not much of an answer but it’s the best I can come up with.
Hi David, I wasn’t really expecting an answer (but thanks anyway), it was more of a rhetorical question, and I think the answer at the moment is very much ‘how long is a piece of string?’ It’s one thing for your Government to set out a plan for a massive increase in Defence spending in the coming years, what it now needs to do is produce a plan on exactly how all that money can be spent. As we all know you can’t just walk down the road to the ‘Weapons Are Us Supermarket’ and pick things off the shelf,… Read more »
I look forward to reading that answer.
I’m sure you’ll get it. But whether he has time to implement it ? ?
We ready have one SSBN on constant patrol from a fleet of four…. How many do you suggest? How many times over do we need to nuke an adversaries facilities/cities?
Currently the Vanguard class carry fewer Warheads than they could, the Dreadnought class will have fewer Launch Tubes, so the reasoning is they have enough firepower for their role.
Sure, more borrowed money for defence is fine, but we need peoplenl; give them better, pay, benefits, pensions…
Quite right. That is essential to recruit & retain servicemen & women who are expected to put their lives on the line for our freedom.
Spot on. If we want more people in the armed forces we’re going to have to look after them better.
With inflation what it is and the timescale – I have my doubts as to the actual real-life increase in purchasing power we’ll see, but an increase can only be a good thing.
Inflation right now is driven by energy costs. Most analysts expect this to unwind over 2 winters. The problem that needs controlling is systemic Inflation where we end up in a cycle.
Not quite in the “shiny new kit” requests, but I hope this uplift allows us to retain some of our Hercs.
If I was playing in the Ben Wallace fantasy fleet game in sounding 3% of GDP I would add the following. Second submarine production facility to build 12 Soryu style SSK’s increase production of SSN(R) to 10 6 more P8 Poseidon’s and purchase of 3 AAS radars to replace sentinel R1. LRASM on P8 giving stand off airborne cruise missile capability and ASM. Buy 7 X B21 raiders. Vanguard life end tension and conversion to SSGN/ drone carriers. Build 5 Dreadnaught SSBN allowing two to be converted to SSGN Build RAF air national guard and transfer up to 100 Typhoons… Read more »
Some good ideas in your post. I like them but I dont know about the B21s they are likely going to be massively expensive and deliver a niche capability. Id rather have a bomb truck like the B52 armed with dozens of long range missiles.
If B52 was in production I would agree, however as the B21 is the only strategic bomber in production it’s the only game in town. If they keep it at the advertised $500 million then a squadron of 7 with US training is affordable. If the UK added strategic bombers much less super advanced stealth strategic bombers it puts our Air Force in the premier league, as only three other countries have strategic bombers and two of them are s**t.
I like the SAMPSON/ASTER combination, but aimed more for defence against air and sea launched cruise missiles. Anyone firing long range ballistic missiles at the UK must know that they are likely to be interpreted as nuclear armed and draw the obvious response.
I’m getting to the opinion now that our enemies strategic nuclear weapons are increasingly less effective and missile defences are increasing more defensive that a small target like the UK is defendable in a limited to medium style nuclear engagement. Eight systems can cover most of the UK population and defence centres with four deployable at division level.
Would love to see the RAF with B1s ,or a thrid carrier for the RN but these days manpower would be a problem.But can’t see this happening,but good to see more money in Defence Jim 😀
Man power is an issue for sure, do a third carrier if it was an asset operating jointly with say CANZUK countries. B1 would be great but they will be too expensive and old to operate. There is a reason the US is getting rid of B1 first. They are really knackered.
Yep there do love there B52s like 👍
With the £ at an all-time low against the US$. This will prove expensive.
Er… It’s 3% of GDP, whatever the value of the pound.
Point taken, but as long as GDP does not decline.
Ukraine is showing that vast quantities of ammunition is needed, from artillery shells, ATGW, SAMs and numbers to replace lost, broken vehicles and logistics.. Not necessarily the most gucci kit.
Most gaps are obvious. More land based air defence with ABM
A HARM type capability, anti ship missiles such as JSM for Typhoon.
The additional 2 Wedgetail , AIS pods for P8.
Artillery refresh, lots and lots of armed drones.
Better accommodation, wages to retain staff.
FCASW on as many platforms as possible.
Joint AUKUS hypersonic purchase.
Small buy of US land based SM-6/ tomahawk launch systems.
It’s also showing you don’t need lots of infantry and armoured vehicles just really good C4 ISTAR and buckets of missiles.
I have been reading this site for a few years now. I read it almost every day – all articles and most comments. I’ve made one very minor comment but the rest of the time I’ve been lurking away, minding my own business. Mostly I read to educate myself, to learn, to figure out what people’s opinions are on the future of the (mostly) UK armed forces. However, it is becoming increasingly annoying to read more and more politics in amongst the educated comments. Not just politics but people complaining about SNP voters or Guardian readers, or someone being a… Read more »
I agree about the political commenting, getting too much like US a politics and a constant need to label Tory/labour/ SNP as the enemy rather than focusing on the actual policy’s of the party’s in relation to defence.
Wise words Mick. We all get it wrong sometimes.
Guilty, m’lud…
That might well be the longest post ever to appear on this site?
Must have taken you ages. Excellent reading.
Thanks Daniele. Been thinking about a post for a while so wrote it, re-read, revised, re-read, etc. Finally decided I’d post it and be damned, as the saying goes 🙂
A nuclear deterrent should be a weapon of last resort. We need conventional strength to deter & deal with threats. Had we not excessively cut our conventional forces, both us & our European allies, then Putin wouldn’t have felt it safe to invade Ukraine(again). Our nuclear deterrent is well sufficient. What we need is the strength in our conventional forces to give our voice enough force so that we never need to use nukes.
Spot on.
👍
Wow lot going on with this thread, to be honest I’m just really happy that were talking about more money on defence, I don’t really care who’s in charge as long as whoever keeps things building up instead of dragging us farther down so think we should all be happy bunny’s about things 👍 I’m also sure we can spend wisely 🇬🇧
I don’t really care who’s in charge as long as whoever keeps things building up instead of dragging us farther down so think we should all be happy bunny’s about things
The one thing everyone on here will agree on.
I’m also sure we can spend wisely.
That one maybe not so much. 😂👍
Lmao 😂🤣 yeah maybe pushing it a little there 🇬🇧👍😅😅
👍👍
”The reality is we will be working with the Treasury to ensure we have a budget that grows to meet the threat and our ambitions.”
So, its all sorted then…..
I think I need to go back to school. I always assumed 2% doubled = 4%. How did arithmetic change to make it 3%. Lol
The economy will grow each year (hopefully) and the value I of GBP will reduce due to inflation and an increased number of £ in circulation. That’s how an increase from about 2.3% of GDP to 3% of GDP leads to a doubling of the nominal sum over 8 years.
👍👍
I’m not counting any chickens yet. As Wallace says, the key thing now is when will the defence budget will start to increase. The Treasury will surely want it to be nothing, nothing … and then [reluctantly] a big uplift at the end of the decade. And of course this is all contingent on the Tories not losing the 2024 election, the pound not collapsing so much that a large chunk of the increase just disappears paying for American kit already committed to (Dreadnought, F-35, wedgetail, etc), and the economy not tanking so much that the IMF dictates the size… Read more »
I’m not convinced there is a treasury anymore. I think they are all working from home and phoning it in well letting the new chancellor make an arse of himself while all sniggering behind his back.
Can you image the same treasury that’s so tight they won’t let the RN a have mark 41 VLS so they can fire too many cruise missiles suddenly doubling military spending while cutting taxes and borrowing more money than the country ever has in history for no reason other than a new PM wants to win an election in 18 months.
Sounds fantastic. We are in October and not April. Right?
🤔 Hope the economy picks up 🙏
I thought this story would make for interesting comments. It’s got it all! F35A v F35B, 3 carrier’s, far East fleets, fantasy fleets, 5 or more Dreadnoughts, Conservative v Labour, Truss v Starmer, high tax, low tax, socialists and bankers bonuses. Whatever happens over the next few year, it’s positive news for defence, and a big change in direction however the money works out. I did read a mini defence review might take place at the end of this year which could see some cuts reversed. We’ll see. And many lessons will be learned from the Ukraine conflict. Any new… Read more »
Well said.🇬🇧👍
Yes, manning really needs sorting out, especially if they are planning to expand escort numbers using a T32 build.
That’s good news, it’s finally an acknowledgement that the risk and threat levels across the world require A far greater focus on security…we are now re-entering a biopolar geopolitical Reality, with a lot of Resurgent satellite threats created by that bipolar geopolitics, a lot of nations that would have kept their heads down and just shouted a bit many end up doing more if they have significant non western backing. Africa can become more a powder keg, due to resources, South America as well with nations that are no friends to the west suddenly finding a backer with a big… Read more »
It’s looking like purchase one needs to be a pretty effective ballistic mIssile defence. We are not there yet but it’s looking like Putin is only a few more steps and defeats away from using tactical nuclear weapons…. he’s making a lot of effort to prepare the ground work and internal justification.
Refuse to get my hopes up. Too much uncertainty around government stability and finances to be able to look out to 2030
Yes, exactly this. It’s an aspiration the current goverment have, but 2030 is a long time away. I would hope that in the short term (the next budget) there will be an increase in the defence budget, but beyond that nothing is guaranteed…
Theyve just devalued the pound though through their crazy tax cuts for the rich funded by borrowing scheme. No one wants that. Its not going to help the economy. Ditto scrapping the cap on bankers bonuses. Cant see us being able to afford £100 billion a year on defence unless the pound devalues to less than 1 euro or dollar in which case 100 billion will be about what we are spending now proportionately.
What a mess!
Lifting the cap on bankers bonues won’t make any difference. They have just being paying them more in salary to make up for the bonus cap. It’s just political spin.
I don’t think they have…and tbh it’s more how they meet the criteria that triggers their bonus’ -that’s what caused the banking crisis in 2008…bankers chasing short term profits so they could buy their new Aston.Hence the controls introduced afterwards. Removing those controls will merely reintroduce the risk taking- I don’t think Kwateng is long for this role-thinks himself too clever by half.
When they cut the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45% the treasury received more income tax from the higher tax bracket, it exists for ideology more than anything else. When you’re in the over 150k income bracket you can afford to put much more into your pension pot, take the money in the form of share options or dividends, cut the tax reduces that incentive and so bring in more tax. Same for the bankers bonus tax, when they are paying 40% tax on it only a moron in government would put a cap on it for… Read more »
Why can’t I post any longer, everything goes to awaiting approval then gets chinned off? Maybe my troll hunting isn’t liked…..
Hi Airborne, I think it’s because you’re now using a different IP address, so the system doesn’t recognise your previous posts and thinks you’re a new user. I wasn’t able to approve comments yesterday, I’ll do so now. Thanks.
Got my approval but alas he/they won’t be there in about 2 years!
Good, restore the army to 125,000 men.
Thats a few too many, Bill. The Options for Change defence review decided that the post Cold War army should be set at 120,000 men (and women!) Subsequent cuts have been entirely to save money, not because the threat profile has reduced.