The Chancellor Philip Hammond has pledged an extra £1bn for defence in order to boost cyber capability and the Dreadnought submarine program. 

The Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has been campaigning for an increase in spending since taking office last year. In June 2018, it was reported that he had asked the Prime Minister Theresa May for an extra £4 billion a year. Prominent defence advocate Johnny Mercer MP praised the “good work” from Williamson in lobbying the treasury.

Williamson hailed the announcement, saying it will “allow defence to modernise our critical assets, such as our offensive cyber capabilities, anti-submarine warfare and our nuclear deterrent.

The extra £1 billion for defence on top of the £800 million increase this summer represents a substantial financial boost and reaffirms our commitment to protecting national security”.

In July, US Secretary of Defence James Mattis wrote to Williamson to express concern that the UK’s status as a leading military power “is at risk of erosion”. Mattis also suggested Britain’s “special relationship” with the US could be at risk without the UK increasing the amount it spends on defence.

“It is in the best interest of both our nations for the UK to remain the US partner of choice. In that spirit, the UK will need to invest and maintain robust military capability.”

James Mattis, US Secretary of Defence

Despite the increase, a long term solution to the £20bn black hole has been delayed by at least 6 months until the 2019 spending review.

Earlier this year, the Defence Select Committee recommended an increase in the defence budget to 3% of GDP in order to maintain influence and capability.

Today’s boost will prevent further cuts to equipment. At the Tory Party Conference last month, it was announced that the amphibious assault ships HMS Albion and Bulwark  would be saved from cuts. Many however anticipated that their saving would come at a cost: the early retirement of several Type 23 frigates. The extra £1bn will likely to prevent this.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
86 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lee H
Lee H
1 year ago

Morning all Could be worse Money is forecast over two years to keep delivery of current platforms and projects on track, it gives planners a little more headroom until the end of the FY and allows certain things to get finished off. Do not however expect anything new (extra T26 etc), this money is responding to the need, a reaction to current issues that need to be dealt with without touching forecast spend allocated to other systems. Other cash is being made available, the Army for example are below their headcount, you cannot pay soldiers you do not have. The… Read more »

Steve
Steve
1 year ago
Reply to  Lee H

Are the details behind the 20b black hole public? From what I read it is based on a number of worst case scenarios happening around price increases of the various new assets. I assume if there was a worst case figure in the report, there’s must also have been a realistic bad case scenario and a norm scenario. We don’t need to know best cases, as they are never achieved but worst cases are equally not that useful as it’s unlikely all purchases will come out at worst case and so is being reported mainly for scare tactics / headline… Read more »

Lee H
Lee H
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve

Morning Steve
They are an estimate based on risk modelling (10/50/90) hence you get such a wide range in the cost overspend estimate (£4bn to £20bn).

Departmental budgets are a very unique government way of doing finances, it can drive you round the bend ?

Paul
Paul
1 year ago
Reply to  Lee H

My first assumption was that the ASW element of this would go towards on or two new P-8 aircraft but I’m not basing that off anything unfortunately.

Julian
Julian
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul

I suspect the mention of ASW might have been P-8 but note also that the other area explicitly mentioned was Dreadnought. Dreadnought is a program already totally locked in at least in terms of the number of units being procured (4 subs) so I assume the reference to Dreadnought was that the extra funding was to ensure it stays on track and isn’t derailed by overspends and/or currency issues (the Common Missile Compartments are presumably USD-priced items for instance). The pessimist in me suspects that the reference to P-8, if that was indeed what the ASW reference was referring to,… Read more »

Cam Hunter
Cam Hunter
1 year ago

Atleast we’ve had some good news this year on defence, it still boggles me that we are spending so much on defence but have far less assets than we used to have!! We should increase to 3% GDP….l

Stephen
Stephen
1 year ago
Reply to  Cam Hunter

I agree, we need to increase spending on defence.

P tattersall
P tattersall
1 year ago

Cam.New modern weapons cost a lot more .

BB85
BB85
1 year ago
Reply to  P tattersall

The way I think about it is to compare the weight of armored vehicles with what they are replacing. Its almost double across the board which explains the doubling of price. Electronics are much more sophisticated now too but the capabilities are significantly higher now as well.
Iraq had thousands of armored vehicles in the first gulf war and was wiped out in a matter of weeks because our equipment was a generation ahead.

John Clark
John Clark
1 year ago

Well guys, a slight increase is better than the year on year real term cuts, defence has experienced over the last 30 years. They simply can’t cut anything else without collapsing capability. The Navy and Airforce aren’t just cut the bone, those bones have then been been thrown in the pot and had the marrow boiled out of them…. Only the army with its MBT fleet has a capability left to cut, there’s simply no choice left but to increase spending now. They have to stop the decline in personel numbers across the three sevices soon, by offering attractive job… Read more »

Stephen
Stephen
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

Better advertising and promotion of the armed forces in the media too.

Frank62
Frank62
1 year ago
Reply to  John Clark

Spot on John. HMG talks the talk to deceive the public but allows capabilities to degrade or be lost entirely. £1bn helps & is a step in the right direction, but doesn’t go very far across the military. It needs a lot more to stop the rot. I’m still holding my breath until it is clear this is new money or just re-announcing previous commitments to appear as new money.

maurice10
maurice10
1 year ago

Is this system is only as good as an ineffective anti-ballistic missile?

Fat Dave
Fat Dave
1 year ago

The carriers aren’t helping: they are sucking extra personnel and finances from Defence and their contribution to Defence is outweighed by the negative impact on balance of forces.

That said: it’s too late (we could and should sell them but that won’t happen).

The Army is still too large; a reduction of 10% would deliver an enormous financial boost to the RN, RM and RAF

Paul Bestwick
Paul Bestwick
1 year ago
Reply to  Fat Dave

Dave the equipment budget for the next 10 years doesn’t really support your argument. https://www.contracts.mod.uk/blog/breakdown-planned-defence-expenditure-2018/. I think it is part perspective, we got used to not having carriers, they return to the fleet and there are issues that program gets the blame. Look to what has been done to the MoD budget over the last 20 years. As to the Army being too big. The RM strength is approx. 10% of the army’s total strength. Not sure what percentage it is of it’s infantry strength? Should the Navy really have almost a quarter of its manpower tied up as Infantry… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Bestwick

Some have suggested RM transferred to the army core budget.

David Steeper
1 year ago

I’d transfer RM to Army and Fishery Protection to Coastguard. Heard from somewhere a while ago that RM officers are keen on Naval link but OR’s would love to be part of Army. The problem is the RN chiefs. They want to keep both if only for sentimental reasons. The RM regularly complain the RN doesn’t value them but the truth is the exact opposite.

Steve Taylor
Steve Taylor
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

OR’s would love to be part of Army?

Gosh, where did you hear that one?

Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy, ask a booty what is says on his ID card.

The RM aren’t like the USMC which is a separate service within the Department of the Navy and is a different service from the USN.

David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Seen and heard it many times most notably from Gen Julian Thompson in numerous books and articles. If you know any ex or serving Marines who disagree i’d be happy to listen.

David E Flandry
David E Flandry
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

In every other major country fishery protection would not be a naval function. It should be part of the Coast Guard and Maritime Agency.

Lee H
Lee H
1 year ago

Morning Daniele
They are wrong

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago
Reply to  Fat Dave

Carriers are paid for and were needed .

Deterrent in core, financial mismanagement and overspending by MoD, and government indifference are the issues.

David
David
1 year ago

I agree 100% Daniele – well said. The point that seems to be overlooked a lot is that Osborne moved the deterrent into the core MoD budget from the Treasury but didn’t increase the budget. It soaks up 8-10% of the MoD budget every year. Moving it back to the Treasury – as it should – would free up a lot of cash and help right the ship! Sadly, never going to happen.

Steve Taylor
Steve Taylor
1 year ago

Wanted not needed. There were other paths we could have gone down.

I would say small carriers for AEW and ASW are a need for us. But a large carrier is more about foreign policy than defence and the two don’t always map.

BB85
BB85
1 year ago
Reply to  Fat Dave

Don’t the carriers have a smaller complement that the previous Invincible carriers, and there is two of them instead of three.
Most of the sailors on board are likely to be fresh recruits who signed up because they wanted to serve on one of the new carriers. Their large size makes them incredibly versatile for humanitarian aid etc during peace time rather than a small and limited LPD’s that would have been the alternative.
Sure the capital cost was large but now they are here to get rid of them would be moronic.

David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  BB85

With air group aboard the QE’s need about 400 more sailors per ship. But when you count 2 new QE’s versus 3 old Invincibles they total the same. The problem the RN has with manning has nothing to do with the carriers.

David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

BB85 your comment on crew size came up while I was writing mine. No plagarism !

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

For goodness sake the QE carriers are without any doubt the most efficient and cost effective fleet carrier design ever conceived. These vessels can each carry 75% the payload of a US Ford class carrier which each cost X2 the cost of both QE carriers combined. The government are asleep at the wheel Williamson is right £4 billion extra a year is needed for defence. A focus on ASW is needed as that is where our potential peer enemies are investing and proliferating. Forget the Russian surface fleet it is the sub surface fleet that Putin is modernising and building… Read more »

Steve Taylor
Steve Taylor
1 year ago
Reply to  BB85

Yes. But in reality we never operated the Invincibles any where near the tempo the US operates its fleet carriers. If you look at when the three were in commission and time at sea you could argue we only actually had two as it were. So in a way the new carriers which be just as ‘available’ as the Invincibles were.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Taylor

1 QE is as capable as all 3 invincible class combined. Yet has much less operating cost than all 3 of those ships combined. I hope the QEs continue their apparent good mechanical reliability so they have availability and can at times have both in service or surged as needed. For me the QE class are exactly what the RN needs at this time with BREXIT approaching and our potential enemies more than happy to contest regions of sea and claim dominance. Just need to ensure the RN has enough warships and subs to defend these flagships and therefore ensure… Read more »

Stephen
Stephen
1 year ago
Reply to  Fat Dave

I disagree, the carriers are a vital asset to our country, they will project, and enforce, our country’s influence around the World. They also do our country’s prestige a lot of good on the World stage.

Frank62
Frank62
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen

HMG & MOD need to improve the self defence armament planned for the QEs as they will be very vulnerable to mass super/hypersonic ASMs.
They put the RN & UK back into the big league & are great enablers. There needs to be enough escorts to cover sensibly sized CTGs whilst leaving enough to cover all the other tasks. 19 is simply too few & the reality is we don’t even have 19 now.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank62

Frank62you are utterly correct sir. The Royal navy needs 26+ escort warships just to match current commitments and provide a CTG That equates to 6 type 45s (updated and armed with Mk41vls strike cells) 8+ type 26s ideally now Australia and Canada have ordered the design we can increase our order to 10+ ASW versions 10 type 31s Astute class needs a batch 2 made up of 3-4 vessels concurrently built with Dreadnought class. Until a batch 2 is built we should probably refit and retain the last 3 Trafalgar class which are still a very capable vessel easily able… Read more »

Steve Taylor
Steve Taylor
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen

They are an asset, but vital? I think national pride is somewhat under valued these days. And as marvellous as QE looked entering in NY and PR value off the charts. But vital no, nice yes.

Martin
Martin
1 year ago

Thank god for CVF, all the positive news flow this is generating at the moment as well as some other naval aspects such as new base in Bahrain is the only good news story’s coming out of global Britain. It’s telling that for the first time in peace time history post 1945 defence spending has become elevated to number two priority behind only NHS. UK needs to continue the focus on the navy and air force and consider scalimg back the army further. 82,000 in the army as well as 7,000 RM 2,000 RAF regiment and 5,000 in JFH still… Read more »

David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin

Martin not nit picking but why do you include RAF Regt in the land forces ?

Martin
Martin
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

MOD includes all 4 of those in it’s land force figures. So true size of land forces is not 82,000 but closer to 100,000.

David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin

Martin the MoD does many strange and inexplicable things ! If they include the RAF Regt they should go the whole hog and include the MoD police as well. They’d be more use in a fight !

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 year ago

For me this 1 billion is just a sticking plaster over a gaping wound, and kicking the healing can down the road a bit more.

Governments are masters at that!

Defence needs increases like that every year ring fenced, not a one off payment followed by the MDP later on, itself kicked down the road repeatedly.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 year ago

Agreed Daniele! “Work on the F-35, by a consortium led by the US-based Lockheed Martin, began in 1996 and was scheduled for completion in 2012 but has been beset by problems. The US estimate of the total cost of the programme jumped from £174bn in 2001 to £283bn this year. Advertisement The MoD has so far refused to provide the estimated cost to the UK of buying the F-35, beyond referring to a National Audit Office report that put the total UK cost of the programme through to 2026 at £9.1bn. The MoD declined to offer even a rough figure… Read more »

Chris
Chris
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

(Chris H) Nigel Collins – I admire your ability to slip in your pet hobbyhorse (F-35) into every discussion. But often you are incorrect in your statements, you quote hugely biased reports and you never answer the key question which is without the F-35B how much would our carriers have cost and even if they would have ever been built. Oh and what would have replaced the Harrier? Now I believe the F-35B is totally the right aircraft at the right time for the UK and that we don’t need the F-35A or C versions. Now whether it proves to… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris

So, reports from the DOD, Pentagon, UK defence committee amongst others are highly biased? Personally, I think not unless you know better which clearly you think you do? Forget the 3000 unit programme Chris H, It’s not going to happen! Speaking of serious problems that rear their ugly heads, let’s talk about the bad news. The Pentagon and two unnamed countries have stopped accepting F-35s in an argument about whether buyers or Lockheed Martin will pay for a costly fix to the jet. “The problem: During maintenance at Hill Air Force Base, maintainers discovered an unacceptable amount of corrosion where… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

And another biased report? or fact? Despite an earlier commitment to buy 138 F-35B jets, it has been suggested that the overall number could eventually fall. Lieutenant General Mark Poffley, deputy chief of the UK defence staff, told MPs today that he was “sympathetic” to the idea that the overall number could decrease. Stephen Lovegrove, a senior civil servant at the MoD, revealed that the cost of the first tranche of 48 could rise from £9bn in 2025 to £13bn in 2048. Julian Lewis MP commented “we are going to have to adjust the numbers of these aircraft that we… Read more »

Pete
Pete
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

If the corrosion problem is as described the only liable party (front ultimate client perspective) will be / should be KN front a latent defect perspective. Client inspection is only assurance… If Mod contracts say anything else there are major competency issue in procuring teams.

Lee H
Lee H
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Hi Nigel I am still slightly baffled why you are against this programme and see it from a very one sided point of view. Countries are buying it, countries are using it – you seem fixated on finding fault with it. The UK will buy the appropriate number of aircraft it needs to satisfy the requirement, this will include cost. I see that you have highlighted parts of the Defence committee that potentially satisfies an arguement that has been had and gone. I am more than happy to be educated/corrected but I hope that the arguement is balanced and not… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 year ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Hi Lee H, My arguments against the purchase of more F35’s other than the 48 we have agreed to is simple. The internal weapons storage is too small, the effective range of the F35B aircraft is not adequate given the distance anti-ship missiles can now reach (currently exceeding 900ml). Advantages of its low observability against future Russian surface to air missiles after 2025. 2x F/A-18E/F Block III Super Hornets can already get a missile track using “IRST—infrared search and track long-range counter-stealth targeting technology, Russia and China will also be able to do the same within the next five/seven years… Read more »

Lee H
Lee H
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris

Chris(H) ??

Nicholas
Nicholas
1 year ago

You are quite right, at least a quarter of the £1bn could go on feasibility studies and project costs before a penny is even spent on actual kit. If the Navy, for instance, wants to replenish it’s dangerously depleted store of spares there wouldn’t be anything left for anything else let alone moving projects forward.

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 year ago

Firstly, I think we should applaud Gavin Williamson, he has shown himself to actually care about our armed forces and our place in the world (whatever that may be). I posted on another thread that NATO is stating our 2.1% commitment equates to £44bn pa. (exc pensions) yet the MOD state we are spending $36.6bn pa. (inc pensions) so there is clearly something additional in that figure or it is wrong. I agree with most of the comments on here, the MOD is wasteful and lacks strategy and a clear focus, with the exception of the RN it is very… Read more »

BB85
BB85
1 year ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Army procurement since 2000 has been horrendous. Constantly changing their mind on requirements resulting in a delay to selecting Boxer and a loss of industrial work share. Corruption in the acquisition of the Command and Liaison vehicle that is now for sale 30 years before its OSD (because it was useless and unreliable). The Warrior Mid life extension has turned into a farce (I would just replace it with Ajax as I don’t think it belongs in the strike brigade concept, its to heavy to be a scout vehicle). I had high hopes for Foxhound but it ended up too… Read more »

David Steeper
1 year ago

Don’t want to rain on any parades but do you all realise the MoD has now received an extra £1.8bn over the last 6 months to spend over the next 18 months. Other than the NHS that is more than any other dept. I’ll suggest again that the problem at the MoD has only a little to do with money and a lot to do with the people running our armed forces and it’s been like that for a very long time.

keithdwat
keithdwat
1 year ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I don’t think using pritt stick for bolts is a political decision, but I agree with you on everything else!

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 year ago

I agree David you have to wonder how Nick Carter got the top Job… did the interview go something like this So Nick, what are your key achievements? Well I have spent billions on strike brigades that don’t actually exist. I also am 10% short on my headcount but it doesn’t matter because we will just use the RM to plug any gaps oh and out of a force of 110k personnel (inc reserve) I can almost deploy a brigade for you should you need it, but really wouldn’t like to go much over a battalion please. At least it… Read more »

Basil
1 year ago

fishery protection is wrongly seen as a soft & surplus element of RN tasking. History aside, The UK fisheries are a significant part of the UK economic picture and protecting the industry is a strategic economic issue, it sits alongside protection of all our offshore assets be it oil or , energy generation. Operationally fishery tasking also involve counter terrorism, national security and various miscellaneous activity. Training wise the fish boats are a core part of the development of seamanship skills for command. The coastguard/ mca are not a law enforcement body, it would take a significant change in legislation… Read more »

Stephen
Stephen
1 year ago
Reply to  Basil

We need more River class O.P.V.s to police our E.E.Z. after Brexit, we don’t have enough of them for a country with our coastline length, especially when you consider some are based far off (e.g. Falklands), some in repair/refit, etc. Italy, Spain and France all have more O.P.V.s than us. We should permanently keep the batch 1s and build another 2-4 on top of that for a total of 10-12.

Martin
Martin
1 year ago
Reply to  Basil

Fisheries protection is actually a DEFRA tasking and they pay the RN to do it for them in English waters. Scotland has three of its own cutters for the same task.

keithdwat
keithdwat
1 year ago

Im sure this extra money in ASW capabilities will a buy a few nice leather seats and a kettle for the P8s!! nothing great, nothing bad, but what do you expect!

Stephen
Stephen
1 year ago

It is good to see more being spent on defence, but it needs to be a lot more. We need more submarines first and foremost, this could be done inexpensively with say 5 Wyvern diesel electric subs, or another Astute or 2. Also increase the surface fleet inexpensively with more Type 31s and River class O.P.V.s to free up the more high end assets. The the R.A.F. should come 2nd, then the Army. I don’t foresee us fighting any major land wars in the near future and as an island it makes sense to fund the Royal Navy and R.A.F.… Read more »

BB85
BB85
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen

I agree in terms of priorities although the army appears to be the branch in the worst state (mostly through complete mismanagement). Their equipment is pretty much obsolete.

Paul Bestwick
Paul Bestwick
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen

Stephen, as I understand it the Dreadnaught program first sub follows on hard from the last Astute. So unless we are going to expand the Barrow facilities whilst constructing SSN and SSBN subs, or start up production in another yard. There will be no more Astutes this side of the Dreadnaught class hitting the water. I would like to see work begin on the follow on to Astute as soon as the final astute is complete. That production run should be to increase the SSN fleet to 12 or so. I don’t see the re-introduction of SSK into the Royal… Read more »

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 year ago
Reply to  Stephen

I would go further Stephen, The UK force is now of a size that it should be collapsed into a single entity. We can have 5 commands of circa.45k personnel (4 deployable +HQ). Each Command will have the necessary assets (land, sea, air, cyber, space) to carry out its tasking and will rotate through deployments and readiness in a managed way. This will require a major structural reform of the military but will make for a leaner more integrated joint force. Whilst the underlying forces will remain in name only, the way they operate and are commanded will change dramatically.… Read more »

David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Stephen a long time ago now the MoD introduced a fixed share of the budget to be allocated to each of the services. Roughly it comes to a third each. They didn’t do this from military judgement but to try to stop the never intending inter service warfare about who should get what. If you think it’s bad today it was infinitely worse back then. If we want to switch priorities between services we can only do it by expanding or contracting there responsibilities. Either way it would be a nightmare to do without the full support of all the… Read more »

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
1 year ago

Like throwing a dog a bone. At least there’s no reductions, but this is a token gesture at best

boypathos
boypathos
1 year ago

the chancellor stated that the government will no longer use PFI contracts (horse and bolted are phrases that come to mind) … could AirTanker be persuaded that it is in their interest to now plumb a few of the fleet for booms, especially given the fact that the limited number of P8s are going to be very busy, and ASW is the current focus

Chris
Chris
1 year ago

(Chris H) – Just like to add some observations if I may? The £1 Bn is EXTRA cash and for the remainder of this year and next. We have just 5 months left of 2018 / 19 so it is spread over 17 months. The cash for Dreadnought (£800 Mn) is additional to this money and is a draw down from the Treasury £10 Bn contingency funding to keep manufacturing going on long lead items. It is also worth noting the very major steps taken on VAT for charities helping Veterans (£10 Mn), the granting of £70 Mn for the… Read more »

David E Flandry
David E Flandry
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris

Moving the costs for the nuclear deterrent to the navy was a major mistake. They are not naval assets, but national ones.
(Coulda woulda shoulda)

David steeper
1 year ago

David Don’t think they’re in the naval share specifically but the armed forces as a whole.

PJS
PJS
1 year ago

The chancellor stated that there will be no more PFI contracts. (horse and bolted are phrases that come to mind) … but could this be a spur to Airtanker to plumb a few of the fleet for booms, now that ASW is clearly high up on the agenda, and so be able to support the very small number of P8s on order …

Chris
Chris
1 year ago

(Chris H) TH – Whatever it costs to remove ourselves from the EU Ponzi scheme a) we were never told this by those who took us in without our permission, b) we were never told this by Remain in the referendum campaign and c) it will be SO worth it. Oh and by the way @ £13 Bn a year that £35 Bn would have been exceeded in 3 years and we are offering this as part of our Withdrawal Agreement which, if there is no deal, we keep. We are a country that honours our Treaty obligations but we… Read more »

rec
rec
1 year ago

If it is extra, then an option is additional Merlin HM2, and fitting out 3 GP T23 with the soare towed array sets.

Steve Taylor
Steve Taylor
1 year ago

It is good news.

But remember the overseas aid budget for two or so years would practically pay for Dreadnought. And that is money we borrow and for which see no tangible results unlike investment in UK industry to support UK defence.

AndrewR
AndrewR
1 year ago

It’s good news. What happens after the review reports will be crucial. Stay as we are, funding wise, and there will be some erosion of capability. 3% is ideal but will never happen. What is possible and should mean we retain top tier capability is a plan to increase spending as proportion of gdp over next 5 years to more like 2.3% (and maybe a bit more)…let’s keep up the good fight!

Basil
1 year ago

Defra and mmo may well task the fisheries, however the economic well being and other associated Operations still stand. Losing the FPS would be severely detrimental on a number of levels. The loss of MOD SAR is now being felt amongst the rotary wing community, The reduction in the availability of aircraft to undertake secondary capabilities is being noticed, an area which is not been covered by existing front line helicopter squadrons in both FAA And RAF. There are no additional “soft” units or departments that can be cut.

Steve Taylor
Steve Taylor
1 year ago
Reply to  Basil

“aircraft to undertake secondary capabilities”

Something which was flagged up at the time by a good number. It was a daft move. Cost of everything, value of nowt as always. 🙂

Simon
Simon
1 year ago

I think this is a step in the right direction and according to mr Hammond the main spending reviews are to come next year though !? it does seem a bit incredulous for defence as the MDP is taking place now (unless it is to be extended even longer!).If we’re to stand-alone post brexit then global engagement is more important, I believe this will result in an increase in military spending, but unfortunately for those with a defence mind also ensure that the overseas budget will remain. So hopefully the government will see sense and ensure that we have influence… Read more »

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 year ago
Reply to  Simon

Simon, as per my previous comment on organisation I totally agree. The UK really does need to re-organise its force structure and for me it should look something like this: 1. Expeditionary Forces (High Readiness – RM, QEC CBG’s) 2. Standing Tasks 1 (Global Ops) 3. Standing Tasks 2 (NATO Ops) 4. Home Defence Force (CASD, QRF etc) 5. UKDF HQ As I have said above – each of these needs to be a separate command and have all assets they need to do their role aligned to that command. No need for separate commands for Navy etc. the. world… Read more »

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 year ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Paceman interesting concepts- if these were merged into one “armed forces” instead of 3 separate, but supposedly aligned forces, we might actually get somewhere. Imagine the efficiency savings of only having one group of flag officers, senior ranks and one logistics command. No more wing commanders and group captains outnumber jet aircraft in the RAF. No more admirals outnumber warships in the RN, no more generals and brigadiers outnumber infantry battalions. Also crucially we would get rid of inter service rivalry in one brush stroke. Thus fleet air arm getting F35B would be applauded by UK armed forces plc as… Read more »

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Parliamentarians and Royalty go through tri-service training, in future that will need to be at least 7 functions (air, land, sea, cyber, star, support and space). Whether we like it or not the world is changing and our officer cadets need to have training that makes them open to opportunities (more entrepreneurial if you like). In this regards I am very impressed with the FSL whilst would hold Nick Carter up as someone who is akin to a consultant, all powerpoint, no action. By putting the power into 4 matching commands (each with the same structure), we will start to… Read more »

john melling
john melling
1 year ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Basically we need to go back to the FLEET system
Home fleet, Med Fleet, Pacific etc, NATO, Disaster relief Task forces
And allocate core assets to each.

Jackthesprat
Jackthesprat
1 year ago

Money well spent.
What price sovereignty? What price do you put on freedom?

Tbenz
Tbenz
1 year ago

We need to establish a proper, armed coastguard which would combine the existing HM Coastguard, the FPS, the Scottish fishery protection assets (unlikely that the Scots would agree to it, I accept), the Border Force marine assets and the various Police marine units. There are various operating models to choose from, but the Norwegian model might be best. AFAIK the Norwegian Coastguard is essentially a Home Service branch of the Navy. The new Coastguard would control the existing SAR helo assets and ideally have a couple of MPA for SAR, EEZ patrol, etc. to allow the P8s to focus on… Read more »

Basil
1 year ago

I really don’t think a combined military system would work, Canada tried it and as far as I’m aware it was a complete failure. Although previously quoted the USMC example of tri service is not a true reflection, as their overall tasking remains focused on mobile infantry insertion via sea. They simply have more in house tools to assist this narrow focused role, akin to the Apache helos of Army Air Corp supporting the infantry. Again using the American example they maintain the fleet air wings within the Navy as this is where the expertise sits and matures. The thought… Read more »

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 year ago

Basil A single force structure doesn’t necessarily equate to the one size fits all – it is more nuanced than that. We will still have a navy, army etc but they will work under a single command – much as an amphibious force would do and has done for the UK previously. What it does do is it aligns operational capability to the force commander across all spectrums of capability and ultimately our senior commands need to become adept at multi domain warfare. Yes it may not work, especially with poor leadership, but with a force of less than 200k… Read more »

David Steeper
1 year ago

Good points about the USMC. It would be a dream if we could have armed forces like them. But there are just too many snouts in our defence trough for us ever to get there. The day we have Squadron leaders (rather than wing commanders) commanding sqds of 24 combat ready aircraft (rather than 2 or 3) will be a positive step.

BV Buster
BV Buster
1 year ago

The whole top heaviness of our forces is a topic that makes my blood boil, I spend a lot of time moving round different units and you will be surprised how many senior officers are doing desk “None-Jobs” just to tick them over until a command post becomes available. We are talking people earning 50k-60k a year doing a job that a corporal can do with a little training. The RAF are the worst for it, every other warm body has gold on their shoulders. We should have a two tier pay system, if you are in command of personnel… Read more »

David Steeper
1 year ago
Reply to  BV Buster

Spot on. But it will take politicians and civil servants with guts to take them on. The chiefs came up the food chain that way and they will fight to the death to keep it that way.