Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced at a NATO summit today that Britain will increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030.

The UK currently spends around 2% of GDP on defence.

The following is an excerpt from his speech.

“This has been a crucial summit in that we are resolved not just to support Ukraine, but we have agreed a new strategic concept, we are moving beyond the doctrine of tripwire deterrence on NATO’s eastern flank to a new approach of defence deterrence by denial. And countries around the table are also recognising that they must spend more.

And in our case that means meeting, and being prepared to exceed, the target we set for ourselves a decade ago of everybody spending 2% of our GDP on defence, goals which were then set for a very different era. What we are saying is that we want Jens Stoltenberg, the General Secretary to start work on that new target now and he has agreed to do that.

We need to invest for the long term, in vital capabilities like future combat air, while simultaneously adapting to a more dangerous and competitive world. The logical conclusion of the investments we propose to embark, of these decisions, is 2.5% of GDP on Defence by the end of the decade.”

This comes after news that Britain announced an increased contribution to NATO, in response to Russian actions, at a summit in Madrid.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace MP said:

“We have always been clear that our strength and security comes from our alliances, and NATO is at the heart of that. The New Force Model and our presence in Estonia will ensure that the Alliance is able to respond at pace, helping to determine stability across Europe in the decades to come.”

UK providing carrier, troops and more to NATO to deter Russia

The Ministry of Defence fleshed out the details in a news release:

“RAF Typhoon and F-35B Lightning fighter jets, Royal Navy vessels including Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, and brigade-sized land forces will all be made available to NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) as part of the New Force Model.

NATO has introduced the New Force Model in support of Leaders’ decision to modernise and strengthen the NATO Force Structure for the future. Allies will declare capabilities, equipment and forces available to support SACEUR, ensuring they are in the right place at the right time. This will allow the Alliance’s military command to plan for emerging threats, safe in the knowledge that these assets will be available to take part in the Alliance’s response. The UK will also contribute to the new Allied Reaction Force: an agile, multi-domain and combat-effective force ready to deploy at very high readiness and to respond to a range of crises.”

The Ministry of Defence says that in addition to increasing its deployments to Estonia, since the Russian invasion the UK has also deployed hundreds of troops to Poland and sent more aircraft to conduct air policing in Romania. Meanwhile, HMS Prince of Wales has led the Alliance’s Maritime High Readiness Force since January 2022.

George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
312 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David
David
1 month ago

Empty promise from a professional politician. Never going to happen.

OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
1 month ago
Reply to  David

Here we go again. It’s a wonder some of the people on this site aren’t on suicide watch.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  OkamsRazor

We won’t need to be, that’s being taken care of!

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  OkamsRazor

I suspect it does people good to rage at someone & Boris will not care – it goes with the job.At the next election people will turn up a the ballot box voting for exactly the same imperfect people that reflect society. Personally I’ve always thought that Boris was an advocate for a strong military but who is concious that MPs believe that society doesn’t care about the armed forces and journalists believe the public do not understand the whole concept of NATO. Is there truth in that?

RobW
RobW
1 month ago
Reply to  David

If, as the article mentions is the PM’s aim, NATO agree to a new minimum spend of 2.5% then it won’t be an empty promise. On the whole this has got to be positive news surely. How it pans out and what it is spent on is key, but we won’t know that for years.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

Agree, the UK were the ones to propose the 2% in the first place now they are trying to put it to 2.5%. The UK is always guaranteed to follow whatever minimum is set at NATO no matter who is in government.

Jack
Jack
1 month ago
Reply to  David

If comrade Corbyn had been elected, we would be spending at least twice that, right ?

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

Always look forward.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. So we need to look at the past & the present to avoid future dangers. If we weren’t so weak & minimal in our conventional forces, Russia & China wouldn’t be so confident to threaten, abuse & attack others. Weak political leadership has allowed things to become dangerous as we see now. Letting that leadership off the hook helps only the fools who drove us into the ditch. Boris & the Tories have taken Russian money, don’t forget that. We’ve also given China a heck of… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Frank62
Nathan
Nathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

“Liked”

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

No-one learns from history, though, Frank. As for New World Order; there’s Peace and there’s War. There’s Rich and there’s Poor.

And I’m not even that jaundiced.

James
James
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

Please give a figure for the standing army, number of warships, submarines and fighting aircraft we would have needed to maintain for Russian to be worried about invading Ukraine?

Considering the US has an absolutely gigantic military and Russia still invaded Ukraine it needs to be an affordable number you come up with based on the UK’s GDP.

Virtually every country has handed over manufacturing to the Chinese, we arent solely guilty of that. Im assuming Russian money was flooding around London in the days before Boris got into power, also dont forget that.

Gary
Gary
1 month ago
Reply to  James

I think the problem is that US intelligence informed Ukraine of an invasion but countries like France said it was nonsense. France has huge investments tied up with Russia, the gas in Siberia for one. There is a reason the Gen Eric Vidaud had to carry the can. France and Germany really need to step up the aid they have promised Ukraine, particularly since they both helped arm Russia in the years preceding. So in short, Ukraine could of been better prepared. UK is buying some systems openly on the international marker to donate to Ukraine. The problem you can… Read more »

Grizzler
Grizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  James

He didn’t say Boris specifically he said Tories…and he’s right Look at the red carpet royal event Cameron gave to the Chinese’s..who were even then oppressors of Tibet et al and have shown no indication of changing that approach with uighar and Hong Kong.. absolutely disgraceful .Even after COVID there are many Tories who support and encourage Chinese money into UK infrastructure with Nuclear and Water as main concerns…If COVID wasn’t a major red flag then this should be!.makes you wonder what boards or directorships some of these MPS are involved in. And don’t get me started on their influence… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

WTF has that statement go to do with anything! If mr blobby had been In charge would he be riding a missile going blobby blobby blobby all the way to Moscow. What matters is now and right now labour are actually saying defence needs to increase urgently in budget, numbers and kit

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Parties say a lot when in opposition, knowing they have zero responsibility for what they say.

Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

It kinda does matter. Criticising those in power without examining why they were put there is relevant,.cause and effect. Labour as the dominate opposition through its failures had a large part to play. After the election the first thing large parts of the part did was blame the press which raises they question, has the party really changed and learnt lessons.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Yes it matters to look at where failures and successes happened in the past. But to state that under Corbyn this and that would of happened is guess work. He didn’t oppose dreadnoughts/trident in defence plan.
Jack said comrade corbyn would of spent double, right?

Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Labour made their defence plan clear at RUSI. We know where Corbyn stood on UKs deterrent he’d apposed it his entire career. He came out again just recently anti NATO and anti nuclear. He bowed to the unions and the party spin doctors whilst leading the party. Same with the EU. The last election was like 2 farmers selling rotten fruit at a market people had to choose, of course there’s those who who will always buy from a certain stall no matter how rotten and defend the rotten goods.

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Corbyn accepted the Dreadnought submarines but they would put to sea with no nuclear missiles onboard.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

No point in replying to them, conspiracy theorist and Troll’s. Corbyn is not even in the Labour Party any more.

Matt
Matt
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Leaving aside Corbyn’s main achievement of allowing racists in his party to emerge from under their stones, he also stated in his manifestos that under him there were all sorts of things that would be done. Rather than ‘not opposing’ the nuclear deterrent, he proposed to cripple it by refusing to meet his responsibility as PM to push the button should it be necessary. The Corbynite tendency in Labour in Parliament – represented imo by the Socialist Campaign Group, which was the group that put him up for the Labour leadership election in 2015 – roughly doubled its representation in… Read more »

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

Ah yes, it will be directed to “re -education” internment camps to ensure we all follow the Marxist doctrine. Besides, it’s important to purge out any capitalist right leaning heresy.

Big brother knows best!(and is watching, off course)

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

Well someone has got to fund the military, the Russian military that is.

Gary
Gary
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

Not twice no, but according to the manifesto I think the standing Army would be larger. (80K) Boris’s idea of not closing the borders early in the Covid outbreak is one example of his poor leadership. Would it have prevented a pandemic no, but it certainly would of helped reduce first outbreak. The government’s earlier hopes that it could rely on large proportions – maybe 60% – of the population getting ill, getting better and becoming immune to build up some herd immunity in the UK population – something many experts thought was dangerous. Herd immunity is normally created by… Read more »

Peter tattersll
Peter tattersll
1 month ago
Reply to  David

Behave ..

Julian1
Julian1
1 month ago
Reply to  David

There will be 1 possibly 2 GEs before this is fully implemented. Plenty of opportunity to reverse it. Just saying

Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Julian1

Would be kinda daft to ramp it up straight away. It’ll take time to purchase new kit and recruit.

Angus
Angus
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Yeah, China will not be able to ramp up on those horrible uniforms now being worn if more needed (real poor quality and should be being made in the UK) We had better in the past for sure. Longer lasting and comfortable. Mill kit well get ALL those tanks back in service and lets get kit that actually works before we commit to wasting so much cash on it (AJAX etc etc) RN Needs something to sink ships and hit targets ashore urgently.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Urgency isn’t HMGs strong point!

James
James
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

Current finances arent HMG’s strong point, that is more of the point!

johan
johan
1 month ago
Reply to  David

Only issue with that is i dont know if you Noticed, THEY ALL ARE. none of them are concerned about anything BUT THEMSELVES. so regardless of who is in power, HE/SHE was voted for by the People, and not his Party.

Nathan
Nathan
1 month ago
Reply to  johan

I don’t think that’s true. I’m certain most MPs enter parliament wanting to serve the public and positively influence the country.
The problem is the adversarial nature of politics coupled with an aggressive media and party system.
Uncertainty; admissions of fault; incompatible views all result in a political onslaught and personal attacks. Honesty, traditional beliefs and doubt are punished – lies, virtue signalling and unwarranted conviction are praised. The politicians who survive and those who “float” to the surface are the ones who’ve learnt to navigate this ocean of sewage.
We get the politicians we deserve.

Cripes
Cripes
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan

A very good post which goes to the heart of things Nathan. The main reason we have this particularly adversarial situation in the UK is our first-past-the-post electoral system, which underpins the two-party system. Both sides take an opposing stance on virtually every issue, backed by rabid, politically driven newspaper owners and editors, so life is an endless series of political clashes and points scoring. The silent majority of people will accept a sensible consensus on most things, but the extreme wings of the two parties will never settle for that, and too often they are the tail wagging the… Read more »

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  David

It is amusing. He started the speach talking about a new risky world and then talks about increasing defense within 8 years. Ala after the next 2 general elections and so long after his gone. Surely if the threat is here currently we need to spend now.

Hopefully some details will come out and it will be a gradual increase over those years and so there is at least some positive to take from it.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Reminds me of Nazi Germanys Z-Plan, designed to produce a decent fleet by c1943 but the war started in 1939. 2.5% by 2030 won’t cut it. We need to deter Russian & Chinese neo imperialism now, not when it’s run riot many years. Western democracy could be in danger of extinction by 2030 as Russian/Chinese continues to destabilise & subvert elections. Look at how close Trump brought the USA to civil war or dictatorship.

Nathan
Nathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

The US is closer to civil war now than it was under Trump, he wasn’t the pariah his political opponents and those aligned with them made him out to be. The problem with the USA is they are turning into two separate countries with very different political philosophies living with a single political system designed to prevent one group gaining significant advantage over the other. Post-2022 Biden will be a lame duck President. 2024 the Republicans will likely take everything again and calls for cessation will start coming from the Democrats again. The only way forward for the USA is… Read more »

dan
dan
1 month ago
Reply to  David

The only politician in recent years that keep most of his promises was Trump. Guess people now prefer politicians that lie and make empty promises…..

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  dan

Clearly you have been buying into his hype. Reworking those promises to fit whatever results actually occur IS lies and empty promises, the only remotely clever bit is convincing people otherwise.

Last edited 1 month ago by Spyinthesky
Fedex
Fedex
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Well said.

Nathan
Nathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

He got closer to keeping his promises than others and the result of Biden’s policies are thousand of children in cages on the border, hundreds of thousands crossing illegally and many dying on the way – what we don’t see are the traffickers enslaving women and girls.

You probably didn’t know but Trump’s policies stopped this and he invested $400m to open a centre to stop human trafficking.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  dan

Trump, who thought Putin was a great guy, sucked up to him & works to rule in his image? Putin loved the idea of an easily played idiot in the Whitehouse.

Nathan
Nathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

We have problems in Ukraine now not because Trump is in office but because Biden is. The disastrous pull out of Afghanistan directly seeded this conflict. Trumps “relationship” with Putin kept him at bay. Given the evidence, there is simply no justification whatsoever for the assertion that Putin easily played Trump – none. We in Europe have been subjected to a continuous flow of anti-Trumpian stories, spin and exaggeration. We are told about the investigations and the testimonies of his enemies in gory detail but the dismissal of these by actual federal investigators are washed over. We hear evidence from… Read more »

OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan

There is some serious reality deficit going on in this recent thread, hope it’s not contagious.

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan

Well said Nathan; nicely put. Absolutely I agree that Putin believed Biden was – and still is – weak. In my opinion, this in large part emboldened Putin to invade Ukraine.

Also let’s not forget the Chinese who too have the same view of Biden; you can bet your bottom dollar they are laser focused on the West’s response to Russia’s exploits in Ukraine. Will China risk an invasion of their own against Taiwan whilst Biden is in office or wait to see who replaces him?

Grizzler
Grizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  Nathan

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 …way before Biden came.to Office…We have problems in Ukraine today because we collectively did absolutely nothing about that.Trump divided the US more than any other modern president and will continue to do so. Im no fan of ol’ sleepy Joe O’Biden either but Trump was/is an arsehole…civil war in US (if it comes) will be due to Trumps divisive politics.

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  dan

Totally agree Dan; love him or hate him, he did a lot of what he said he would do. He wasn’t perfect and made mistakes but overall, I truly believe he tried to do what was right for the American people. Don’t be surprised if he runs again for 2024. He still commands a very strong base and carries a lot of influence in the Republican Party.

Considering Biden has stated he will run again, the next POTUS will be a Republican!

Ron Stateside
Ron Stateside
1 month ago
Reply to  David

You are as informed as a field mouse there is nothing conservative about republicans anymore they have no counterpart anywhere in the west. The closest coimparison is the Taliban (assault rifles for 18 year olds yes; 10 year old girl raped abortion no). They along with Trump are in danger of being charged as a RICO by DOJ to cover all the crimes committed. Foolish to comment on the domestic politics of a country you don’t live in really.

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

You should really learn not to “assume” that which you don’t know. I am American and I know EXACTLY what I am talking about thank you very much!! Now who’s the misinformed field mouse… idiot.

Ron Stateside
Ron Stateside
1 month ago
Reply to  David

“I truly believe he tried to do what was right for the American people.”

An lying troll or as idiotic of a statement as a human being can make. The list of active investigations goes on and on and the story is only beginning to be told but look up Tom Barrack and the charges he faces. Trump was an agent of foreign powers and will go down as the most corrupt president in US history full stop.

Graham
Graham
1 month ago
Reply to  David

True. Boris won’t even be PM in 2030.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham

Dear God, what if he is?

James
James
1 month ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Then defence spending will be 2.5% will it not?

Cripes
Cripes
1 month ago
Reply to  James

John, full marks for your unrestrained optimism in the face of adversity! You join the small minority of citizens who still believe a word Boris says! We are in a position where, due to repeated Tory cuts to the forces, we have next to nothing spare to contribute to the urgent NATO 300,000. We are left, as so often with Boris, talking big with nothing to back it up. The 2021 defence review, with its lunge to out-of-area deployment and the Navy at the expense of NATO Europe, clearly needs to be revisited and revised. Boris cannot do so without… Read more »

Grizzler
Grizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  James

Obviously…it’s not he will lie is it…🙂

Dragonwight
Dragonwight
1 month ago
Reply to  David

If is definitely the operative word. Its always jam tomorrow with this government.

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  David

Politicians take difficult decisions that they need to get past a society that believe war is in the dim and distant past or far away lands. Perhaps this professional politican is thinking that the public are beginning to wake up and smell the coffee.

Angus
Angus
1 month ago

Interesting and how will that be spent? We still need a big increase in numbers across the board. Perhaps the carriers will at last get the air wing assets they deserve and other current programmes with increased haste. NO MORE CUTS Boris.

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

The Ukraine conflict should tell us that it is not solely a numbers game. Ukraine has potentially millions of fighters and Russia tens of thousands of tanks. What is needed is modern weapons in sufficient numbers in the hands of trained people. We also need a public who are not so dim that they have to be told by the BBC what NATO is.

Angus
Angus
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark B

The right motivated and trained people are the most important thing. Working kit another. High tech not always the way as history tells us too (Vietnam for example). Quality yes but still need numbers.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark B

Haha, the BBC who continually tell us what they think is right & wrong & then have the deluded cheek to tell us they’re not biased?

It is a numbers game when tyrants calculate wether they can get away with aggression.

Wasp snorter
Wasp snorter
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark B

Well put, to pick up your point, in reality Ukraine has more fighters mobilised than Russia when on its own soil, the difference is organisation, training, supply and motivation. Russia need to win on all those counts, not on numbers. Yes Russia is trying to win based on numbers but how is that going for them. Not sure why NATO needs to mobilise 300k troops when russias only advantage is reckless brutality and big numbers of inferior equipment, of which is dwindling by the day. Even their elite units are exhausted and whittled down to importance. Those numbers are draining… Read more »

Wasp snorter
Wasp snorter
1 month ago
Reply to  Wasp snorter

Impotence not importance, jeez

DRS
DRS
1 month ago

By end of decade, so how? A graduated and locked in increase every year to be that by 2030 or just kicking the can down the road for next administration to have to deal with/roll back on.

Is this just the art of saying something but in reality promising nothing.

I’ll go back to my cynical box now 🙂

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  DRS

Yeah very good of bogis to promise something that requires him to make zero effort. I promised my employer to work 2 days a week for free by 2030. I retire in 2026😂😂😂

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Yeah it’s to be expected that for politicians promises are always long term while their actions are always short term, what’s best for the Country is rarely the consideration when getting elected is the aim and self promotion and fooling the public the priority.

Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

So you increase it from tomorrow your not going to get another T26 or Astute in built tomorrow or recruit over night. Taking the politics out of it common sense says you have to ramp up spending.

Matt
Matt
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

The sensible start is not to cut the things we will need later.

Keep the army, and save retraining 10k new bods with the skills we are about to make redundant 😎.

I think it is also quite important to remember that BloJo-BoJo is the illegitimate offspring of Pinocchio and a performing sealion.

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  DRS

DRS however enthusiastic politicians are about defence the public has been complacent for 70 years now. Contrary to popular opinion society decides where money is spent by being interested in it (or not).

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago

Interesting.

Now what about the 2023/4/5 dip in spending how is that to be flattened out?

What does this really mean.

Kudos to Ben Wallace for being the first defence secretary in my memory who got a cash injection and a commitment to increase spending. Will have also been down to hard work by Radakind who reformed RN spending habits.

Let’s see the detail please.

John Dixon
John Dixon
1 month ago

Probably smoke and mirrors again. Meanwhile, he’s committing extra troops to the European theatre AND cutting the army by 10,000! An absolutely insane decision. Not only does it dramatically increase our vulnerability, it subjects the army to impossible overstretch. Cameron cut the army from what is scarcely a bare minimum of 102,000 to 82,000, and now Johnson reduces it to 72,000! Beyond belief. We will pay a terrible price for this.

Christopher Allen
Christopher Allen
1 month ago

Pathetic. We are basically a few steps short of war with Russia, where the consequences could become catastrophic, and THIS IS IT? Johnson and Sunak are, quite simply, taking the p1ss.

grizzler
grizzler
1 month ago

What did you expect of them …thats 8 years away I douby 0.5 % will make any difference over that time period .
Quick Question for those more financially astute than I – What happens to GDP in a recesssion?

Wasp snorter
Wasp snorter
1 month ago
Reply to  grizzler

GDP may stagnate but I cannot see it shrinking unless another covid hits us. Don’t forget GDP is not tax returns, it’s all spend in an economy not just the governments, so when we say 2% of GDP it’s easy to forget that actual government spend is more than 2% from what it has available. I find it shocking we are now back in the position of paying more in debt interest each year than what we spend on the entire military, was only 1996 when we had a surplus each year.

eclipse
eclipse
1 month ago
Reply to  Wasp snorter

A surplus in government budget is a poor sign. Similarly, while people complain about inflation, deflation is far, far worse. I can explain further if necessary.

Wasp snorter
Wasp snorter
1 month ago
Reply to  eclipse

A surplus would be used for investment in public services or tax cuts or whatever, then there wouldn’t be a surplus, so I don’t get your point. By surplus I mean no debt, so let’s say that. Of course deflation is far worse, so is being attacked by sharks, I can explain further if you like.

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  Wasp snorter

Even with a small budget surplus last had in 1999, it would still take a very long time to pay a trillion off.

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  Wasp snorter

Also don’t forget that inflation devalues the real value of the debt.

eclipse
eclipse
1 month ago
Reply to  grizzler

Ok so. Firstly it’s not 0.5% it’s 25% relative to our current budget. That’s a big difference. As to GDP during a recession. GDP during a recession always falls. That is the definition of a recession; two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth constitute a recession. Despite Boris’ spin on some fantasy 2.3% budget, the truth is it has been declining as a proportion of GDP. If GDP declines also, it will result in a significant budget cut at at a time so crucial. However, I do want to debate the possibility of a British recession. London, despite low public… Read more »

Grizzler
Grizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  eclipse

That’s sort of what I was asking..if GDP shrinks with a recession then in the 0.5% ‘increase’ in spending could end up being less in real terms and taking into account inflation then it becomes doubley less (if that makes sense)..Johnson probably thinks its a shame we aren’t currently spending 0.5%of GDP he could spin it that he was doubling it.Its real spending that’s should be the indicator not a percentage of an arbitrary mechanism for measuring “growth”….I understood GDP wasnt originally meant to be used to measure a countries economy.and the yanks changed its use as a measure (what… Read more »

eclipse
eclipse
1 month ago
Reply to  Grizzler

Japan doesn’t have low GDP. It has the third largest GDP in the world and the largest non-superpower economy. Often dodgy accounting does make up a large part of defence spending, especially considering the percentage of GDP. For example, some countries like to take a single quarter of GDP, the one with the lowest GDP, and take defence spending for that quarter too. In the U.K., that now works perfectly. Defence spending is usually higher in the two quarters after the budget comes out, which now is November. Meanwhile, GDP is often lowest in the January-April quarter since people spend… Read more »

Wasp snorter
Wasp snorter
1 month ago
Reply to  eclipse

Er ok

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  eclipse

The defence budget allocation increase for it’s remaining 2.75 years until Apr 2025, would need to be increased to keep it’s real value, or if not, the proportion spent on defence as GDP will fall.
The promised increase in defence spending may only occur after Apr 2025?

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  grizzler

GDP goes down but pretty much all political parties and foreign peers are making defence spend linked to GDP..But even if you double defence spend from tomorrow you can’t buy another T26 or even another Typhoon tomorrow you can’t add manpower tomorrow. You have to recruit and train so rises have to be incremental.

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago

True, I think that War will Russia could only be a few months away at best

Something Different
Something Different
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

I may be wrong but based on their performance in Ukraine, Russia is not going to be able to undertake a successful conventional peer conflict with NATO anytime soon.

David John Bevan
David John Bevan
1 month ago

I think we need to learn the lesson that as far as Putin is concerned capability and intention are too completely different things. His personal beliefs not reality guide his decisions. He could wake up tomorrow with his knickers in a twist over Kaliningrad and he’s in a regime surrounded by cowards who let him do what he wants. We are honestly not in control of the decision whether or not we’ll be at war with Russia in the next 6 months. Better for us if we plan and prepare for that scenario now.

Last edited 1 month ago by David John Bevan
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago

Just read that they still can barely field a squadron of Stealth fighters if an aircraft with 2nd Gen engines can actually be called that and that Checkmate has just been delayed till 2027 at best as there are grave doubts that the foreign investment to produce it will ever arrive, or will be much delayed at best as the foreign technology it needs simply won’t be available to it now. Despite all their blustering hype they really are not at all well off in high tech war winning weaponry. Seem to be rattling through their Soviet antiques too by… Read more »

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

True, I think that War with Russia could only be a few months away at best

How do you edit your comments?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

To the right is a cog if you are on a tablet you may have to pass your finger over it to reveal it. The edit facility is enclosed within it.

Graham
Graham
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

I find the edit facility is unavailable after a time.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham

Yes, you’ve only got a limited time before it remains as is. Anyone know how long that is? 30 mins, an hour?

Graham
Graham
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

You see Russia invading a NATO country? I doubt it. They are weakened from losses in Ukraine and massive hit to the economy.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago

I’m not sure I see a war with Russia.

I think Ukraine might well grind them up so much that they are not much of a threat.

The real issue is China and doing enough that they take NATO – or whatever it needs to be called – seriously with AUKUS bolstered.

After this conflict China will own Russia so China is the real worry as is the disintegration of Russia.

My concern is lack of plans for peace and rebuilding a demilitarised Russian economy without the graft without external intervention by economic carrots.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago

Precisely, this is a sideshow for China, the West is preoccupied and threatened in Europe while it’s ‘partner’ is irreversibly pushed into client state status further weakened even as a junior partner while forced to buy its technology in exchange for its cheap petro carbons. Lovely jubbly in Chinese as long as it doesn’t decay too far which is probably its present fear and be one’s a total lame duck. And there we all thought Putin was a clever tactician.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago

It a hot war happens it might happen sooner!

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago

Inflation will probably destroy any actuual increase by then. We’ll pay 2.5& but still get less.

Stu
Stu
1 month ago

Makes a nice headline but when? And: ‘Before we spend another penny, it would make sense to make some reforms about defence spending & the MoD. I’ve argued for an age that we have funding a**e-backwards. We (the UK) currently have a budget each year & the branches then argue for their programmes to be funded. Some are then delayed or slowed to spread to cost (increasing total cost & leading to capability gaps!), some cancelled just before they bear fruit & some sunk costs are followed by more money. What we should be doing is to decide what we… Read more »

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago
Reply to  Stu

Music to my ears Stu. If only the powers that be could grab a bit of your common sense. We have tasks that are made for us such as the Expeditionary Force with the Scandinavian and Baltic states; North Sea/ Artic Protection; Force projection and insertion with the carriers and commando’s. Lock into these and then buy the best kit that money can buy.

Ross
Ross
1 month ago

Leaving the cynical comments to one side for a moment… hats off to Ben Wallace and the Lizz Truss whom have clearly used the timing of this to press the PM into a further increase (albeit graduated) over the coming few year. But make no mistake this will be worth £-bns in additional funding. Worth noting too the the Chancellor has most likely only agreed under considerable duress. Worth bearing in mind that defence hasn’t been a vote winner for about 100 years in the UK, and very rarely has there been the political will, let alone public support to… Read more »

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Ross

At last, a reasoned, thought out response.

Ross
Ross
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Cheers Sean

JohnG
JohnG
1 month ago
Reply to  Ross

Agree with this. It’s jolly good news and pretty remarkable, although I do appreciate that the devil is in the detail. Just read an article (guardian) saying cumulative extra will be 55 billion by 2030, with a Def budget of 74.5bill. IF that is the case, that’s an average extra of 6.9 billion a year over the next 8 years, although I understand it will likely be much lower at the start cumulative maths and all that, I also understand that it will in reality be much more complex than this. Still a wins a win. Next battle is to… Read more »

Ross
Ross
1 month ago
Reply to  JohnG

thanks John, I definitely hear you in terms of spending the money wisely. I would suggest that a very targeted approach would maximise the gain, and although I’m especially pro Navy….the Army really needs to be looked at, with a view to increasing it’s size (though I could say that about almost everything in terms of UK defence!)

eclipse
eclipse
1 month ago
Reply to  JohnG

Sorry is this in pounds or dollars?

James H
James H
1 month ago
Reply to  Ross

I honestly feel you’re being a bit over optimistic in your interpretation of this.
Truss and Wallace have more leverage while the PM is struggling, he needs to keep his cabinet happy.
Moreover with the Chancellor, the target is 8 years away, probably at least 2 general elections in that time, its easy to give the green light on something that far away.
Lastly the army was promised to not be cut anymore, look what happened there.

Ross
Ross
1 month ago
Reply to  James H

Hi James, noted on all your comments to be fair. Though for the sake of having said it the PM has made clear his intention to fight at the very least another election (if not a 3rd term), though granted all of that really is too far away to call. The hope is that a Conservative Government would keep to their commitment, or a Labour one would carry it forward…though I’d rather not risk that, but we’ll see how things pan out. No matter the reservations (which I share somewhat with you), I do believe this a positive development whichever… Read more »

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  James H

Doesn’t matter how many elections away. If Jens achieves the aim of making this the new NATO minimum spend then any U.K. PM not meeting it is going to be placed in a politically and diplomatically difficult position.

Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

It depends on how you spend it. Labour promised 2% last election but on examination of their RUSI briefing it would have eroded key capability with a drive towards peace keeping and aid. 2% spent on the right things is better than 2.5% on the wrong things.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Yeah, well that’s Labour in a nutshell…

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Yep, goodbye to war fighting. Kinook wanted that once, turning GR1s into “interceptors”
Britain needs to be at the top table and get involved in geopolitical affairs to try to shape the world to our advantage.

That horrifies many on the left. If we don’t, others happily will, to our detriment.

Ross
Ross
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Well pointed out

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Ross

We live in a different age now, instant news, live from anywhere on the planet, social media etc, people can be more aware of just how unstable the world is and defence spending become something of relevance to them.

Ross
Ross
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

True enough, unfortunately (and this isn’t a dig, per say) the general public can be somewhat fickle in the causes they feel passionate about en-mass. Often highly effected by the media.
Ukraine has of course very much focused the mind on why defence is important, though there’s precious little understanding at the need for long term defence investment, even when the enemy isn’t obvious (at that moment). Too many people think a military can simply be created at the drop of a hat sadly.

Sjb1968
Sjb1968
1 month ago
Reply to  Ross

Agree totally and whilst there is an awful war being fought on European soil that has been caused by past mistakes and we have to deal with the present crisis with what we have. It is very likely any NATO confrontation with Russia would turn into Armageddon and whilst Putin might want that given his delusions, I don’t think many others even in the Kremlin think the same. Therefore an incremental increase in spending does make sense because to build up our forces to anything like many on here see as the minimum will take a decade and more to… Read more »

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  Ross

Agreed, but according to the BBC support sent to Ukraine is now included in defence sending, which means we send 2.3% of GDP on defence..!

However, whilst that may be a pain for another 12 to 18 months (hopefully the war will not last any longer than that) it will hopefully mean that the increase will stay in ‘defence’ except it will be spent on the UK armed forces.

What I am saying is that we could be at 2.3% by the end of next year beginning of 2024.

Fingers crossed.

Cheers CR

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 month ago
Reply to  Ross

a well written piece Ross, nicely done.

Ross
Ross
1 month ago
Reply to  Klonkie

Cheers mate 🙂

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Ross

Defence may not win votes but it is the only way we guarantee our future.
Without credible forces we paint a target on oursewlves that eventually someone will take a pop at.

Last edited 1 month ago by Frank62
Ross
Ross
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

Amen to that.
One of my genuine fears is the fact it is inevitable that eventually the time WILL come when we must fight as a nation, and we might not be prepared.
War is one of the true consistencies throughout history, and the present and near future to me look very dicey. You only have to look at the Great War to know how quickly ‘regional’ events can slide into something catastrophic. Ukraine today, maybe Taiwan in 5 years….or a different situation that isn’t yet expected.

Simon
Simon
1 month ago

It would be nice (assuming it isn’t wasted of course!! ) However I will believe it when I see it!

Stc
Stc
1 month ago

Spending, like the Germans, is required NOW, not in 2030. If we do have to fight the Russians it will be long before 2030. This is not 1940s you cannot churn out typhoons and F35s like you could Spitfires and Hurricanes. Our leaders and their advisors saw those pictures coming from Wuhan in 2019 and they left it too late to act and the doing the same with Russia. Let’s bury our heads in the sand and let’s hope it does not happen! The sensible course would be to borrow a 100b and spend it re equipping now and next… Read more »

Ross
Ross
1 month ago
Reply to  Stc

I do completely agree with you, but in the context of UK defence since the end of the Cold War….this is at least in the right direction, with likely real terms increases each year up to 2030. Notwithstanding any change of government.

johan
johan
1 month ago
Reply to  Stc

Ok you issue the orders for the Kit now and spend your £100b on what exactly. as you dont have the people in place to put in them. Currently taking 12 months to get a New Car. UK has 26 F35s yet we only have 13/14 pilots, Typhoon Tranche 3 order is in place waiting for its new Radar, Chally 3 is in place, forget Ajax. Navy have new ships in-build.
So what you going to order, you have just borrowed £100b and cannot spend it. and the interest on that would eat before you could.

Stc
Stc
1 month ago
Reply to  johan

1/ if your info on pilots is true, then you spend some of it recalling pilots that have left in the last couple of years. Bring in limited conscription if necessary. 2/ Start ordering challengers and Ajax replacement today not some fantasy date off in never never land.3/ start replenishing those stocks of materials we have given the Ukrainians 4/ order 35a and beg the US to make it a priority so we get the next 30/40 of the production line. 5/ purchase a anti ship missile for the navy 6/ Order TODAY heavy artillery and rocket systems. I could… Read more »

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago
Reply to  Stc

Don’t forget more P-8 Poseidons and Wedgetails

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  johan

Do you mind me asking how do you know how many qualified F35 pilots we have?

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

that number can’t be correct Robert -13 F35 pilots? I imagine there’s a reasonable number in the training pipe as well?

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Klonkie

Yes, thst seems very low, considering we have 617sqn, 207sqn OCU has 10 aircraft now, and 17 sqn OEU, with 809sqn the next frontline unit to form.

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Thanks Robert , enjoy the weekend!

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Klonkie

You too pal 👍

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  johan

Program Stats

  • Aircraft Variant: F-35B
  • Program of Record: 138 Aircraft
  • Aircraft Delivered: 17
  • Flight Hours: 4,900+
  • Pilots Trained: 150
  • Maintainers Training: ~40

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35/f-35-global-partnership/f-35-united-kingdom.html

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  johan

An example of how part of £100b could be spent is the case of the Type 26 Frigates, apparently BAE Systems offered to build all 8 for the price of 7 if the MOD paid all of the money up front. If that was indeed the case it would offer much better value for money to the taxpayer than the annual drip drip drip of instalments.

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  johan

We could order an extra T31 and one more T26. And 3 more P-8’s

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  johan

I too am curious about your stated number of trained F35B Pilots – i have read of a number which i won’t post on here but it was significantly more that the total of Aircraft so far delivered.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  Stc

The extra money Germany is spending only brings them up to spending levels we have been at for years.

Bean
Bean
1 month ago
Reply to  Stc

Spending, like the Germans, is required NOW, not in 2030.”Have you read NATO’s latest Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries ?https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_197050.htm

Stc
Stc
1 month ago
Reply to  Bean

Did you hear the speech by Ex Admiral West. By all means ignore what I say but I suggest you listen to what a professional ” soldier ” has to say on the subject. It’s a pity these senior military men do not make the truth clear when they are actually in their role and not wait until they are retired.

Bean
Bean
1 month ago
Reply to  Stc

As far as NATO is concerned, in that link I provided, Germany is spending 1.4% of its GDP or $51bn on defence in 2022. The UK is spending 2.1% of its GDP or $71bn on defence.
So we don’t want to be like Germany, thanks.
Germany may in future years provide increased funding for its own military but until they do, and start spending it on defence, NATO won’t record it as being defence expenditure.

Frank62
Frank62
1 month ago
Reply to  Stc

Spot on Stu. Too many see the headlines & think everything is hunky dory but people like us need to see the government deliver, or kick up a storm when they don’t.
Boris insisted on shaking everyones hands, got Covid & supercharged the pandemic sending infected OAPs back into care homes.Getting the big calls right is as valid as all in it together. Both are empty spin. Claps for nurses but kept devalueing their pay.

Rob
Rob
1 month ago

This does not make sense. If we need to raise defence spending because of the Russian threat, and we do, then we need to it now not by 2030. I do hope the PM isn’t using this to divert attention from a truly awful story which Private Eye have published. 😜

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

If it did kick off with Russia, it would be all over long before 2030. Realistically it’ll be the next 24 months if its going to happen.

Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

100% agreed sir. It’ll be over so fast, there won’t be time for new kit. We’ll fight the next major conflict (I pray never happens) with the kit we have on hand. Not what we would’ve bought, fitted things ‘for but not with’ or what we’re developing.

Graham
Graham
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

Do say more about the Private Eye story.

Rob
Rob
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham

I’d love to but George might not be too impressed. It’s all out there on Twitter.

grizzler
grizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob

BJ by name BJ by nature….?

Rob
Rob
1 month ago
Reply to  grizzler

Correct.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 month ago

Jam tomorrow. How many times has that been promised since 1990? What (non defence) will be shoe horned into the 2.5% to meet the target?

Ross
Ross
1 month ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Hi John, I share your general suspicion in terms of ‘jam tomorrow’ and possible ‘creative accounting’, though I would argue it is highly probably to see defence spending up in % terms each year going out to 2030, so should be some hard cash coming. In terms of how that figure is reached, we we know that the Government has been incl. defence spending in Ukraine as part of those figures thus far (personally I believe this should be coming out of the Foreign Office budget…but hey). However, once we par things back in that area, either because the conflict… Read more »

Ron Stateside
Ron Stateside
1 month ago

I remember looking at what a 4.5% increase to the MOD’s budget would do and it was a game changer. It was ramped up over 5 years as there’s no practical way to spend all that extra money in a year anyway; procurement, among other things, obviously takes time. Now we are talking about a much bigger number and the immediate reaction on this board is pessimistic. There are a lot more anti-West trolls on this board than a lot of people realize. My advice is to stop drinking their Kool Aid and take excellent news for what it is!

OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

Agree 👍🏾

Neil o'Neill
Neil o'Neill
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

That would be true if it had suddenly been put up to 4% overnight but an increase to 2.5% is completely realistic when the uk military has such huge holes in it. Germans have just put theirs up from 1.5 to 2% and 100billion on top so it is doable.

Ross
Ross
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

Totally agree

Graham
Graham
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

But it is a long time to wait for 2030.

Bulkhead
Bulkhead
1 month ago

Joke

JamesD
JamesD
1 month ago

Just more meaningless bullshit from Boris.

Ross
Ross
1 month ago
Reply to  JamesD

Don’t allow your personal bias to cloud things.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  JamesD

Bullshit that could be worth 55bn for defence. If you fancy making the decisions, become an MP.

JamesD
JamesD
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Yeah come back to me in 2030 and tell me what that’s worth

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  JamesD

Do you want an increase or not? How many other Nato countries are paying over 2%? Not many.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  JamesD

You can say that about any future budget. It’s still considerable investment for defence.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago

When people have have finished their political tantrums…

The proposal is that 2.5% becomes the new NATO minimum for all members, rather than the current 2%. By announcing the U.K. is already committed to that target the idea is to encourage/ embarrass/ bounce those nations that still don’t meet the current 2% minimum to pull their fingers out.

Last edited 1 month ago by Sean
RobW
RobW
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Well that’s one way to ensure it can’t be rowed back on by future governments, unless of course they justify ever more costs as part of defence.

I was trying to work out what that means in £. Based on 2021 GDP it is £55bn I believe, but that is no different to what we spent in the year to March 2022. I’m guessing that is because of the 4 year uplift received last year.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

I believe NATO defines what can and can’t be included in costs that can be described as being ‘defence’. Wise move to stop politicians inflating defence spending.

No way of telling what that means in £££s, as we don’t know that the GDP will be, nor do we know what the purchasing power for each £ will be by then. The longer the war in Ukraine goes on, the lower both of these will be however…
It’s not just Zelenskyy that wants this war over by the end of the year, I expect the majority of world leaders do to.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

This government is apparently already including our support to Ukraine is being included in the defence spending, which is now counted as being 2.3% of GDP according to the BBC. So in the short term I would suggest that British Armed forces are unlikely to benefit at all in the short term, however, if the war ends towards the end of next year it would be politically rather difficult not to transfer the funding to the MoD, at least in part initially… So may be, just may be, we’d see a siginificant increase to the MoD towards the end of… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by ChariotRider
OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Don’t say something considered and rational, it stops people from being hysterical and having suicidal tantrums about how bad everything is.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  OkamsRazor

Gosh you’re right, totally forgot this is the internet rather than the real world 😉

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Sean, I appreciate your sentiment, and there were interesting posts on equipment procurement and timelines needed, however, this is gesture politicking by Bluffer.

There are probably a host of missiles that could be bought in the short term not merely to replenish stocks but to add new items, e.g. NSM

Furthermore, many countries don’t even spend 2% now, let alone 2.5% in the future.

Finally, Bluffer will be out of office soon and won’t have the responsibility of seeing his pledges through.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

If it was gesture politics then Jens Stoltenberg would’ve be involved with it. Boris could have simply made the announcement about the U.K. period, this is about raising the NATO minimum from 2%, which Jens has previously said should be considered a floor and not a ceiling. As for being out of office soon, I doubt it. The rules of the 1922 would need to be written. And who would replace him? The backbench loons like Steve Baker would be as toxic as Corbyn was to Labour. Which leaves the Cabinet, none of which are breaking ranks because right now… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago

It’s not enough and it should’ve been done a long time ago and i’m so angry right now and I don’t believe it and it’s so unfair and you always do this and you said you love me and and and. Sorry. You guys always give me flashbacks to an ex I remember.

OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

😁

Nick C
Nick C
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Sounds like someone I knew a while ago. Probably her mother!☹️

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick C

Cheeky b…ard. 😂

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

🤣😂😆😁

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Well I think we’ve learned one thing today. That for most of the contributors on this site Thursdays is their carers day off.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

😆👍

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Friday afternoon for me – NZ time!

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago

Boris is one major British military defeat (maybe the sinking of one of the carriers) to becoming an ex-PM

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

You mean like how Churchill was replaced after the Fall of France and Dunkirk, or how Thatcher was replaced after the Sheffield was sunk…?

It’s one thing to hate a politician, it’s another to fantasise about the death of British servicemen as a way to remove them from office.

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

The Fall of France has its beginnings in the 1930’s before Churchill came to power. Britain won the Falklands War, so Thatcher is not held to blame for the sinking of British warships during the conflict. She could be held to blame for planned British defense cuts before the war.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Clearly you don’t understand the concept of analogy. I’ll make it simpler for you to understand, PMs don’t get replaced due to a tactical failure during a war.

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

PMs don’t get replaced due to a tactical failure during a war.

Maybe they should, if they try to micro-manage the battlefield.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

That you for admitting you were wrong.

Grizzler
Grizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Or Churchill would never have been made PM in th first place.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Grizzler

Exactly! 👍🏻

johan
johan
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

She has been dead 30 years, i would blame your mother for not shutting her legs. but i am not that Bitter

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Its a bad example really because Churchill wasnt meant to remain PM, it was an arrangement between Chamberlain, Halifax, Margesson and Churchill that Churchill would be a temporary sacrifice to take the political flak and allow Halifax who was the Conservative party leader and favoured candidate of Labour, Conservatives and King to resign his seat in the lords and win a by-election.

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Er no, now you’re just rewriting history 🤦🏻‍♂️

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean
Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Thanks for posting that link, because it proves that you were completely wrong in what you said in your previous post 🤣

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 month ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

*Chamberlain Conservative Party Leader until October 1940, Halifax was the intended successor as PM.

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 month ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Hi Watchzero. It’s interesting to ponder how things may have played out if Halifax got the ticket as opposed to WC. I imagine he’d have taken up Hitler peace offer.

johan
johan
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

what a sad bitter person you must be to want 800 plus crew sunk, because a Tory is prime minister, DUE TO THE FACT your own party FAILED TO SHOW UP. talk about wanting a medal for taking part. does Buttercup want a recount to see how many Corbyn LOST BY.

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago
Reply to  johan

I would take no pleasure in the death of 800 plus crew. My family has fought in the 2nd Boar War, WW1 and WW2 and not all returned home. What I do not like is doing defense on the cheap as to me this is what Boris is trying to do. I use the example of a RN carrier sunk since this is in the fictional book, 2017: War With Russia by General Sir Richard Shirreff. The carrier was sunk by a Russian submarine because the RN did not have enough escorts to protect the carrier. Escorts were being recalled… Read more »

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

I think you will be more appreciated over at the guardian chap!

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim

I am not a Leftest!

Graham
Graham
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Some would argue that we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan so maybe we are talking about our third military defeat?

Neil o'Neill
Neil o'Neill
1 month ago

It should be 2.5% now and 3% by the end of the decade. People are getting worried now, defence is starting to become a vote winner. My 3 sons are all saying at school they’re asking if there is gonna be a war. He’s totally lost me now

Marked
Marked
1 month ago

Pretty meaningless when the party in power could have changed, potentially more than once, before 2030.

Fedex
Fedex
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

Exactly.

James H
James H
1 month ago
David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago

Complete cobblers.

I hope, that if Labour are elected, they uphold this pledge.

Dave b.
Dave b.
1 month ago

To be fair to the current government and I’m no fan of any of them inflation is the enemy at the moment until that gets back under control the extra spending will be irrelevant.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave b.

Not so sure. There has been a lot of talk from the NATO summit about establishing a safe corridor to Odessa, so that grain carriers can be used to export Ukraine’s grain etc. There has been some inklings that Russia would agree to a humanitarian corridor. But there are so many sea mines off Ukriane’s coast, that clearing them will take weeks or even months. Ukraine would want NATO guarantees that if they give over the maps of the mines locations, Odessa wouldn’t then be invaded. Which means NATO would have to provide its defence. Which would start a very… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Problem is with a guy like Putin he would fire a few off at a NATO ship and then just lie about it being the Ukranians taking pot shots.

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Someone mentioned scrapping RN minesweepers… er.

NATO have a Standing NATO mine sweeping group… perhaps we should augment the force.

Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago

In the context of what we find ourselves in, this announcement really is not good enough. Not even close.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago

Waste of time making the announcement. The world is falling apart and we are going to do next to nothing about it until 2030. Great. Every time I read an article on defence these days something is going to be done about everything BUT, and it’s a big BUT”😉not until 2030, 2035, 2050…Star Trek, a future generation.

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Look on the bright side, T32 will have warp drive.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

Thanks David. I hope to Klingon to see them in service.👽

Alabama Boy
Alabama Boy
1 month ago

Given the parlous state of the UK economy and the massive difficulties of fulfilling any promise outside the current year its easy to make a promise for the end of the decade knowing you won’t be around to take the wrap when it’s missed. I believe the revised target 2.5% of GDP by NATO is currently a WAG and is there just move others closer to the current 2% target. NATO needs to conduct an urgent in depth analysis of the actual threats now posed by Russia, the positive and negative impact of modern weaponry, the rate of ammunition usage… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Oh! Did not think she was that old?

Last edited 1 month ago by Daniele Mandelli
JamesD
JamesD
1 month ago

20 years old. In favour of autonomous systems blah blah blah. One less vessel for for actual real people to get experience on but that’s the future apparently

Graham
Graham
1 month ago
Reply to  JamesD

Is the rationale for unmanned mine clearance that it is risky doing it with manned ships? When was the last time a manned MCMV was sunk or damaged during mine clearance?

Angus
Angus
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham

A long long time ago. You still need to get the new kit to the location to search and clear, so how are they doing it? No real units to do it and you would never use a fighting ship for such a role, or it will soon become a victim. Cheaper units that can carry such would be better, North Sea Support vessels are just the job. But the accountants just see savings and not actual capability. Once a World leader 🙁

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

So this unmanned approach is purely to save money? Are any other nations going this way? Always best to follow the US lead regarding new ways of doing things – if it does not work out for them, we have lost nothing.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I still think we should have joined Belgium & Holland. They get 6x new motherships each, from which to launch unmanned mine clearance boats.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

National Flagship ?

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I was looking at Ocean Infinity who took over the Vosper Thornycroft site in Southampton. I wonder if they will be part of the new wave that will take over from the likes of Scott and Echo.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Yes, impressive technology. The drones are here 😊
From the RN web site..
“The Future Military Data Gathering programme will see the use of more modern equipment, autonomous systems deployed and the introduction of new survey craft later this year.

The Royal Navy’s hydrographers and meteorological experts will continue to serve aboard ships across the globe but will also deploy in smaller teams around the UK and overseas.

It will also see the Royal Navy work even closer with UK Hydrographic Office”

Mikeytee
Mikeytee
1 month ago

Really depends on what GDP is over the next 8 years, go into a recession and thats going to be 2.5% of a smaller pot of money.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago

a) commitment for whoever’s in #10/11 then
b) plainly insufficient unless adopted now
c) GDP falling: we’re apparently already at 2.3%, in short term accounting, supporting Ukraine.

Ianb
Ianb
1 month ago

So a cut in spending in real terms with inflation at 10% as they will be including far higher wages by then.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ianb
Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago

Some pretty unbelievable comments in this thread considering this is positive news. Devil is in the detail as always, but this could release some pretty serious money for defence in the coming years. We are not at war with Russia, and we are playing a leading role in preventing a war with Russia and the defence of Ukraine considering the political constraints. We are part of NATO, a cog in a much larger machine.We have capabilitys available today and coming in the future that most of our allies do not posess. We are not going to build a 150k Army,… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Robert Blay.
Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

I think I’d term myself cautiously optimistic.

What I’m pessimistic about is the fantasy admirals and generals who’ll start giving it big licks and tell us all about their dream orbats that’ll totally work now.

The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

What that man said 👏🏻

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago

👍 Thanks.😀

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

I think a lot of people are so used to rhetoric and using recycled money and promises to look like something is being done leaves people very mistrusting of grand announcements by Politicians like Johnson. For me it’s all about outcomes. If we see some meaning outcomes and increased capability I will cheer, but an announcement of 2.5% by 2030 on its own is meaningless, better recruitment, maintaining deployable capabilities and adding capability is the only metric that’s worth anything. I’ve sat in audiences when ministers of state have made “ today I can announce” statements and they never come… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Time will tell. But it’s still a positive statement, even if we don’t have any details as yet. This boost could make projects like Tempest more likely see the light of day. And we did get a considerable increase just last year.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Yes, well said.

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Oh, modal verbs… love ’em

“…could…”

Enough said.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago

Well let’s see how much cash the forces get.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago

Come on BJ the head of the Army is telling you more investment is needed and your defence Minster plus other MPs if ever a time to do it it’s now. 💂💂💂💰💰💰

jason
jason
1 month ago

Boris will be gone in the next 2 years hopefully replaced by somebody who will actually take defence seriously. By 2030 is pathetic considering we need a massive increase right now.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 month ago
Reply to  jason

Yes, I want Boris gone, but fear his replacement could be worse.

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago

Talk is cheap and we have at least one election before 2030. By 2030 we are going to need at least 3% if things keep going the way they are at the moment.

RobW
RobW
1 month ago

I think some of you need to get a grip. An increase in defence spending is announced but it’s the end of the world. No other government department has had 2 increases in less than a year.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

Exactly. Some people’s mindsets are still firmly in the 80’s.

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

No, the mindsets are in the here and now with a lying, convicted PM, who… lies.

The Convict has no credibility.

Tobias Ellwood for PM!

RobW
RobW
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

I’m no Boris fanboy but he hasn’t been convicted of anything. A fixed penalty is not a criminal conviction.

I doubt Mr Ellwood would even make the shortlist let alone be appointed by the party. Jeremy Hunt is the best bet I think. Boring, perhaps, but maybe we all need that at the moment. He’d have to increase the defence budget too given his past comments.

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

Come 2030 2.5% of GDP will be worth 30 bob and a chicken and that will probably have the flu!!

Andy P
Andy P
1 month ago

Not read all the comments on this stuff so apologies if someone else has said similar. Seeing as how Russia has been so gash at this whole warry thing, I can see the US leaving a war in Europe to the Europeans (while still waving the nukes about if required) and concentrating on the Pacific theatre. From their point of view it would make sense so possibly us Europeans have come to the same conclusion and realised we’d better up our game. The Russians have taken a sore one so are probably unlikely to be able to invade anyone else… Read more »

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy P

There really should not be a need for the US to lead a European war. Look at the combined wealth of Europe and we should be comprehensively beating whatever conventional forces Russia can muster. That we can’t is down to lame leaders who frankly take advantage of their US ally.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago

Well we may have just seen one benefit/ Outcome RFA Argus will now not be decommissioned in 2024 but will instead be keep until 2030 when a direct replacement will be found. That means they are not removing the Maritime Role 3 capability or the flight training role.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Lost Echo though.

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 month ago

Is she gone for good DM , or temporary laid up?

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Klonkie

Decommisioned. Ships have come back from that, like the B1 Rivers, but not many.

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Thank you Jon

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Good news. Thxs for the post.

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 month ago

3% is needed immediately. I am afraid this is very cynical of the PM who knows he will not be in power in 8 years time. the country has benefited from the peace dividend for years now and it’s time to reinvest in more peace, and the good news is it won’t cost us 4 or 5% as it did during the Cold War. the other thing that is generally unnoticed is how much defence spending benefits the poorest parts of our country. I have personally benefited from being part of the military and believe it changed the trajectory of… Read more »

criss whicker
criss whicker
1 month ago

in real terms exactly what amount of money are we talking about.
[ 0.5% ] of how many billions per year.
anybody care to tell??

Steve R
Steve R
1 month ago
Reply to  criss whicker

2.5% of GDP equates to approx. £50 billion per year. So looking at an increase of around £6 billion.

RobW
RobW
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve R

I think its £55bn based on our 2021 GDP of £2.2 trillion, an increase of around £10bn a year. If this is delivered incrementally then it can make a big difference.

Steve R
Steve R
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

I can’t see any other way than it being delivered incrementally; raising it by perhaps a billion or so a year each year. Otherwise it’s a £10 billion increase in one go, which will be difficult to actually spend. I just hope it gets spent on things we need now rather than on jam tomorrow. Reverse planned cuts to the army down to 72,000. Aim to maintain the army’s current size and even grow to 85,000 Upgrade all Challenger II tanks to Challenger III Replace Tranche 1 Typhoons with 30 or so Tranche 3s Purchase at least 90 total F-35Bs,… Read more »

RobW
RobW
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve R

I daresay that the increase will really just plug the budget gaps that the mythical “efficiency savings” never does. We may get a few good news stories with programs accelerated and a little more mass but nothing substantial. It should prevent further cuts though.

Last edited 1 month ago by RobW
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

And even that will be welcome.

RobW
RobW
1 month ago

Indeed it would. If the increase is followed through we might actually see significant benefit from 2026 onwards after the 4 year “bump” is over. It is jam tomorrow but better than where we are now. If we can get NATO to commit to 2.5% as the new target then it will be much harder for future governments to row back.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

It’s always Jam tomorrow, but could be worse, it could be no hope at all. There is always hope.

criss whicker
criss whicker
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve R

thanks.

Tom Keane
Tom Keane
1 month ago

So the budget will rise to 2.5GDP by 2030… after the Army has suffered more cuts, the tanks have been melted down, ships and aircraft have been scrapped off before their time leaving a weaker Army (it’s not good for much now anyway) and ‘holes’ in other defence areas. Typical typical tories.

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 month ago

The general prevailing view that a 2.5% gdp defence spend is required. This commitment requires a re set. This needs to be a bi partisan commitment- legislate and MAKE the houses(s) endorse it. Before you all start bemoaning this suggestion, Australia for many years has successfully maintained such a bi partisan (un legislated though) approach. Neither party cuts. It can be done and in my view is critical in today’s geo political climate. The truth however, is that this will require funding to pay the piper. I note that in WW2, The chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood) imposed… Read more »

Chris
Chris
1 month ago

Possibly I’m wrong, but with a long term budget increase could we not increase the numbers of T45 and Astute successors etc to bring the unit cost down meanwhile increasing personnel by the end of the decade for an overall increase?. In the meantime it would be good to see a lump sum to increase stocks just incase the worst happens.

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  Chris

Perfectly feasable yes – the Type 83 and SSN(R) are far enough down the line that any increase in numbers could be factored in, but the downside to that would be a lot could happen in that time frame regarding the World situation and the likelyhood of changes to the UK Govt which always has the power to reverse decisions previously made.

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

I suppose we all live in joke. Thank you

PeterS
PeterS
1 month ago

I don’t think that this is in reality a new commitment. Rather,in the light of the doubts expressed by the NAO about assumptions in the 10 year equipment plan, it is what we will have to spend just to deliver what we have already committed to. There are some real difficulties to be resolved- What is to be done about the Ajax programme? Cancellation and replacement or a full fix of the existing vehicle will inevitably need additional funds How much additional funding will be needed to make fuller use of the carriers, whether by more F35s or some drone… Read more »

RobW
RobW
1 month ago
Reply to  PeterS

Very much this. Every defence review in recent memory has assumed efficiency savings can be found to keep the budget in check, whereas the reality is that never happens and is just kicking the can down the road. With this increase we will hopefully be able to move forward with the programs that are in the pipeline with no further cuts, incremental increases in orders for key kit and stocks, and accelerating some programs such as Boxer and new kit for the RA.

PeterS
PeterS
1 month ago
Reply to  RobW

Reading Boris’s statement again, it seems even clearer that he is saying that commitments already made will mean 2.5% by 2030. I don’t think its deceptive, just a statement of fact. So no new funds.

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  PeterS

“What is to be done about the Ajax programme? Cancellation and replacement or a full fix of the existing vehicle will inevitably need additional funds.”
I feel tempted to find a replacement alternative reccon vehicle, that would be air transportable 20t max,
maybe from South Korea?

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
PeterS
PeterS
1 month ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Even if the Ajax contract had run smoothly, it is an astonishingly expensive programme. Only 245 out of 589 vehicles will be the full fat Ajax variant with Istar package and CTA 40. The remainder look much simpler. So why have we contracted to pay nearly£10m per vehicle?
I agree we need to reset and get a lighter reconnaissance vehicle. To me Ajax has never made sense.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  PeterS

Boxer, Ajax, Watchkeeper, MoD love a very expensive solution.

Expat
Expat
1 month ago

Portugal has come up with a drone carrier. Perhaps with more cash we can get something similar.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/06/portuguese-navy-unveils-new-drone-mothership-project/

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

A ski-jump? Can the turboprop Grey Eagles or Reapers really take advantage of a ski-jump? I’d think it would need a greater power to weight ratio.

Matt
Matt
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

I like the translation.

“drone mothership project dubbed “plataforma naval multifuncional” (multifunctional naval platform)”
It’s nearly as good as listening to Macron, Sholz, and Draghi on the train to Ukraine talking about how Macron got the Emperor’s Bedroom and the others the hoi-polloi cubicles, and having to do it in English.

Expat
Expat
1 month ago

Not bad news for anyone invested in defence stocks. Which is most people with a pension.

Nickpilot
Nickpilot
1 month ago

Seems a good start would be 24x Typhoon, 3x Poseidon and 2x Wedgetail. Then maybe a couple more T-26. And if Santa is very kind another Astute. Though logistically that boat has probably sailed already. Oh and maybe a way for RN ships to actually attack something in the near future.

Paul (Jacko) Jackson
Paul (Jacko) Jackson
1 month ago

Habitual liar promises something eight years in the future…. how is this presented as news/going to happen ffs

Shep59r
Shep59r
1 month ago

Ha…. really. Johnson can’t keep promises for 24hrs in advance let alone 8 years!

Sooty
Sooty
1 month ago

So we have a war in Europe NOW and the UK defence spending will be up to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. Isn’t that a little late? Not only that, even Labour is calling for an immediate increase! Is Labour now more defence orientated than the Tories? If so the world has truly been turned on its head! Surely even the PM realises that deterrence isn’t achieved with hot air.

RobW
RobW
1 month ago
Reply to  Sooty

Assume for instance that an increase is granted immediately. What could that be spent on that would make any difference to the war in Ukraine? It takes years to deliver military programs. All we can do is provide the kit we can to the Ukrainians, which is already happening to the extent it can without risking WW3.

It is very easy to demand spending when in opposition.

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  Sooty

I’m no fan of Labour, but let’s remember the deepest cuts of the last 35 years have taken place under Conservative administrations.

My personal view is this is nothing but hot air, no emergency SDSR, no money now, just a vague promise of gravey tomorrow, with the can kicked down the road by two parliaments.

Typical political manoeuvring, doodling about, while Rome burns.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Sooty

Better it comes late than not at all. Eight years will roll around quickly enough. I’d like to see us build up to 3% given the current climate, but you have to get to 2.5% first. Poland’s immediate jump to 3% is impressive, but that’s too rich for UK politicians who have been used to continual defence cuts since before most of them were born.