During a Defence Committee session, Fred Thomas MP questioned whether the UK’s current defence spending aligns with the increasing threats identified by senior defence figures and NATO leadership.
The discussion centred on the disparity between the call for a “war-fighting mindset” and the limited defence budget.
Thomas opened the debate, stating: “It would seem to me that a war-fighting mindset would be incompatible with a country spending as little as 2.19% on its own defences.” He highlighted the funding challenges that impact the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and asked how the UK could bridge this gap.
Andy Start, Chief Executive at Defence Equipment and Support, acknowledged the rising global dangers: “There is no question that the world is dramatically more dangerous than it was for most of my working career… As a nation, we have a choice, a political choice, about how much we are prepared to do.”
Start spoke on the MOD’s role in maximising the effectiveness of the allocated budget: “Our job is to make that spend as appropriate as we possibly can make it… We’re very clear and open about the fact that there’s a rising threat, and we will seek to do the best we can with whatever the country decides it can afford.”
However, Thomas challenged Start’s claim of transparency: “I don’t think that the MOD is clear and open about the fact there’s a rising threat.”
Lieutenant General Sir Robert Magowan defended the MOD’s communication efforts: “We are doing what we can to educate people generally on the nature of the threat… The Chief of the Defence Staff has been very clear about the increasing threat.”
Turning to the government’s 2.5% defence spending target, David Williams, Permanent Secretary at the MOD, described it as a political decision: “The Government’s commitment is to set a pathway to 2.5%… Into the 2030s, I’d like to illustrate for ministers the kind of capability choices you get for some different budget scenarios.”
Thomas highlighted remarks by the Chief of the Defence Staff, who recently criticised the MOD’s slow and cautious approach. Aneen Blackmore, Director General Finance at the MOD, responded by acknowledging the need for reform: “One of the challenges for us in the department is how we understand our risk position… The Defence Reform Program launched by the Secretary of State is critical to ensuring we have the right processes and controls in place to deliver against that rising threat level.”
“I don’t think that the MOD is clear and open about the fact there’s a rising threat.”
I think it’s pretty clear to most people that there is a rising! Though the current government doesn’t seem to be acting as though there was.
Coincidentally, the YouGov daily survey concerned raising the NATO target from 2% to 3% of GDP. Despite the YouGov audience generally being centre, to centre-left, 50% backed the increase.
The issue is if you then asked them questions on what should be cut to pay for it, they would say no to every option and if asked if they were willing to pay more tax again they would say no.
Public opinion surveys are complex to really interpret.
From where I’m sitting the only major defence action regarding equipment is decommissioning not increasing equipment. Gone are the Landing ships, Typhoon Tranch 1, 20+ helicopters and drones. In reality, not one aircraft capable of delivering ordinances or ships that can provide troops ashore or helicopters that help deliver vital war stocks should be disposed of until a direct replacement is commissioned. Only then should any asset be cast. I do understand the arguments tabled by the Government for these actions but until there is clear evidence the Russian forces comply with any future peace initiative, we should hold these assets in reserve.
Can anyone think of any actual signed up for major contratual order of New weapons / equipment purchases other than 2 x 2nd Hand OSVs and some NSM for the Navy or 18 x 2nd hand Archer SPG for the Army made in this decade ?
And infrastructure, ammunition replacement scoping, intentions to buy, investigating or fancy named projects don’t count !
Or am I wrong ?
Tongue in cheek we may be about to introduce a new bit of super green artillery its called a Ballista and we just bought 36,000 sources of bricks for ammunition.
I hear you! Regarding NSM for the RN, only two of eleven ship sets have been installed on escorts to-date – a full TWO YEARS after the announcement was first made (Nov-22). You can’t make this stuff up. If it comes to a shooting war anytime soon, I’m afraid Britannia is hosed!
There has been a number of smaller deals done for various things but agreed nothing major.
Saying that the smaller deals to cover things like armour, optics etc are still important.
I am convinced it will take a serious Russian “attack” to disrupt infrastructure before these Jackasses wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe Starmer and the other idiots should be attached to the Poles for a few months to see what preparation means. A few weeks without electricity, a functioning NHS or transport? Could be just the ticket…..
Nah he would blame it on the “black hole” left by the tories!
The black hole is an issue though. It’s been independently proven to exist so where does the money come from?
Frankly it disgusts me. Yes defence spending is unpalatable but so is an aircraft fool of body bags.
Hospitals, schools, universities , good social service mean nothing if the country cannot defend itself and its interests. Starmer is at the defence conference of the member nations of the Joint Expeditionsry force, these countries must be tearing their hair out at Starmer declaring there is a very clear and present danger but we are going to do nothing about it, these countries are depending on the UK to be the big dog that helps them when Vlad or his replacement decides to re-aquire former soviet real estate. The JEF acts while NATO debates. Right now we are more of a miniature poddle. This is not like ww2 where we can quickly gear up to build spitfires. The weapons we will need in 5 years have to be order TODAY.
The standard statement is to wait for the defence review. Some basic communications with the team behind it should enable forward procurement decisions to be made now.
I tell my wife that you put your money where your heart is. I also tell her that you never get rid of anything that you might need in the future until you have the replacement for it. As an American taxpayer I fully expect that the incoming administration will put a tariff on all our allies that fail to spend enough to defend themselves or the alliance. I’m not talking about 2 or even 2.5%, most likely 3.5 to even 5%, get ready.
No one can afford that, might drive some to leave NATO with those kind of demands.
All that you have to do is look back at your Cold War budget allocations and return to the last time the threat was this great
In the end the US only spends around 3% and the US is also concerned with china..in reality Russia is small beer..the nation shattering war with be the one with china.and if the U.S. pushes to hard or walks away from Europe it will loss its key allies just at the point it faces the only enemy since the Soviet Union that is really offers existential threat to it.
3% is sensible and attainable by most if not all NATO countries but frankly this will not be done overnight most modern weapons are long lead. Order today and you get in several years , the build up of spending will be slow but steady.
But to be blunt the US under Trump is an unreliable partner and even if all NATO countries danced to his tune it is no guarantee that if article 5 is invoked Trump will deploy US military forces.
The Orange one should also remember that because the US is the big dog in NATO, it puts American defence contractors in a favourable position. That could/ would change.
Bate in mind one of the Top requirements of Tempest is no US content therefore no US influence over who it is sold to etc. and it could very well cut F35 sales off at the knees.
But to be blunt, the UK, and a number of other European members of NATO, are an unreliable partner for the US. The UK pretends to be a major economic and military power but its manufacturing base has been hollowed out as much as its Armed Forces. The American military leadership’s characterization of the UK as a second tier military force is based on the experience with it in Iraq and Afghanistan and its current levels of manning and deliverable fire power. No army can survive on a modern battlefield without an effective air defense and missile defense system, neither of which the UK possesses. The UK just can’t put boots and firepower on the ground of any significance in a war with first tier powers. Let’s be honest, The UK can’t survive on a modern battlefield without integration with US Armed Forces.
If Tempest ever gets to IOC, a very dubious proposition, it will be met by two US sixth generation fighters in production.
Enough of the unrealistic bluster. Try living in the real world.
Claim: “The American military leadership’s characterization of the UK as a second tier military force”
Fact: Journalists claimed that unnamed defence sources said that an unarmed general said such-and-such. In court that’s called hearsay.
Claim: “ without an effective air defense and missile defense system, neither of which the UK possesses”
Fact: The Army has both Sky Sabre and Starstreak – the latter has proven effective against the VVS in Ukraine.
Care to show where I exhibited any bluster? Try reading all my posts including the one further up the this page.
I do not and never have, said the UK armed forces RIGHT NOW are fit for purpose.
Further I will be surprised thanks to Trump and the extremely uninformed Musk if either US 6th gen jet ever reaches the runway and even if it does. Based on the F22 , will it be sold to a third party , I doubt it.
Not my problem if you don’t agree with my assessment of the Orange one and his commitment to NATO. If I am proved wrong , I will be happy to put my hand up and admit it. I very much hope effort is being put in by NATO to Trump proof it,
Yes, the Ukraine Contact Group – Ramstein AFB has considered #45 proofing the support as evident from the flurry of Packages in the last days of #46. Timid to the end.
#47 will quickly figure out that he has no leverage with the terrorist state unless he surges support to Ukraine so that peace talks become kaputins preference because RF is loosing hard..
Be a bit more blunt, remind everyone which NATO country invoked article 5 after 9/11. Remind us which country led the catastrophic invasion into Iraq based on a lie ? Remind us which country threw its allies under the bus when it abruptly withdrew from Afghanistan following the sellout surrender deal your orange narcissist signed ? Go on , be blunt, show how reliable you are.
And what should be the most concerning thing for the US citizen that thinks about geopolitics is that there is now another superpower at the other end of the pacific..churning out significantly more warships than the US and has 260 times the ship building capacity of the US..it’s also measuring up the U.S. for a war to strategic/political exhaustion..and one of the key deterrents preventing this other power pressing the go button on a catastrophic war is the fact the US has far more allies than it..the U.S. losses NATO and china is going to hit the US military in the western pacific with every missile they have ( and they have a shit ton) invade Taiwan, draw the USN into the western pacific and engage in the biggest mutual naval blood bath the world has ever seen…. Because china is perfectly willing to loss it’s navy..it’s built almost the whole thing in under a decade..it can build it again..the US cannot rebuild the USN in anything under a generation..AKA china wins the mutual suffering and destruction game.
I personally don’t care who makes or doesn’t make money. I don’t like being taken advantage of. I believe in NATO. I am military retiree. I have served with you guys. You are good guys. But you are nice to have not need to have. I don’t need to repeat all the inadequacies of the British military, you yourself know this already, I would just hope that you will do better.
The only NATO member to invoke Article 5 was the USA (9/11) when everyone responded. So clearly NATO membership is the USA national interest.
Congress passed a law to prevent an Executive Order to exit NATO, last time.
.
NATO says the 2014 spending 2% agreement is on track, so his alleged delinquency by Europe is just to trigger his supporters. Lies.
.
So it was in the national interest of the free world and Ukraine that convicted fraudster and rapist #45 was defeated by US voters in November🇺🇸
They failed, against their own interests, as they will find out..
All this does not matter #45. His world view is transactional and he enjoys bullying. I have line said that NATO needs to become 32 countries not the US plus 31.
The best counter to Trump if he tries his games is to say in 31 voices, thank you for your service, there is the door.
It will be painful, it will be difficult but with the right leadership and determination.NATO can withstand a US withdrawl.
As for Congress approval. The republicans in Congress have shown little sign of growing a back bone, I see little evidence they will now,
To be honest and completely brutal, the next likely world war and county shattering event is likely a U.S. china war..if the U.S. is not in NATO Europe can play neutral and in the brutal game of world power the block that stays out of it as Much as possible when two other blocks tear each other to threads generally wins geopolitically.
Hi folks hope all is well.
Interesting article. Although there’s an article circulating I think it’s the Express and others about Starmer having to decide to cut toop numbers by 20,000 or scrap both Elizabeth and POW? It appears this is information at the initial assessment ahead of the review penciled for next year
Cheers
George
You’re believing a story based on unnamed sources, in a tabloid…
Congratulations, you’ve won a lottery that you’ve never heard of. I just need you to post your bank account details…
I also have a beach front parcel of land up for sale on the Sea of Tranquility, very cheap.
I have a second hand bridge for sale…
In reality defence spending has not been adequate since the start of the war on terror in 2001. The budget was set for a peace time armed forces and defence review, the 1997 review essentially 2.5% GDP..that was adequate for a peace time world, not to support an almost global low intensity war, that was also high intensity at times, with multiple major campaigns. By 2002 the budget should have had an extra .25% on it to fund the war on terror campaigns so 2.75%
Then in 2010 even that level was cut significantly, just as china and Russia started to push and see, the budget at that point was not even the min amounted needed in peacetime for a peaceful world. So instead of a budget that should have been 2.75% we had one that dropped to 2%.
2014 was essentially the early stages of a new Cold War between the west and Russia,China, Iran, we kept the same inadequate budget, infact it dropped off and by 2017 was at a low of 1.95% just as the world started to loose like a very dangerous multi polar world. Instead of dropping again it actually should have been creeping up with a plan to hit 3% if the world did not calm down
2021/2 the world essentially moves to a pre world war state…but the budget had not even been raised back to its 1997 level so just as the world Wa indicating it was likely heading for a world war or major conflict within the decade, defence spending had not even come back to peacetime 1997 levels and was at 2.23%..by this point it should have been at 3% for a few years and belligerents and threats seen in 2021/22 should have tipped the government into a plan to get it above 3%.
So yes its inappropriately low, has been for over 20 years, between
2001 to 2010 it was about .25% to low,
2010-14/5 it was about .75% to low
2016-2021 it was about 1% to low
2022 to now it’s about 1% to low
This is why we have moved from
An RN of 33 escorts to 14,
An army of 6 type 58 tank regiments to soon to be 2 type 56 tank regiments, 3 armoured brigades, 3 mechanised brigade’s and 2 light/air mobile brigades ( 8 deployable brigades in 2 deployable divisions) to 2 armoured brigades, supported by a strike brigade and a mech brigade and 2 light/air mobile brigades. ( 4 deployable brigades in essentially 1 deployable division if luckly).
An airforce of 186 tornado GR1/4, 112 tornado F3, 76 Jaguar and 90 harriers for around 460 fast jets in 1997 to 106 typhoons and 48 F35s in 20025.
Rolling the budget for the Nuclear deterrent into the MoD budget blew a big hole in the conventional arms budget,
A despicable HM Treasury ruse.
‘By the time you notice it is too late’.
Fortunately Russia is in much more of a hole than Blighty. I suggest this crisis is more in the recruitment, retention and deployment sectors of our national defence stance. We cannot speed up further; it will be well into the next decade before we might expect to see any improvement. That is plain fact.
This article has actually framed the issue reasonably well, if somewhat starkly. Members of HMG have essentially admitted that neither the current nor the projected defence budget (2.19% of GDP to 2.50% of GDP), is sufficient to counter existing and/or anticipated threats to the UK. David Williams, Permanent Secretary at the MoD has evidently offered to create a capability vs. cost matrix into the 2030s, for the benefit of the political class, as well as the general electorate. It is then a fully-informed political decision requiring necessary tradeoffs among diverse priorities. The most basic obligation of a government is to provide for self defense capability, which will equate to X% of GDP. An expeditionary capability to support in theater NATO operations would be X + an appropriate delta. An expeditionary capability to support ops. out of theater would be an additional delta (e.g., support of Commonwealth countries, or conducting ops. in the I-P). Ergo, missions would be conveniently circumscribed by the budget. Absolute geopolitical clarity provided to friend and foe alike. Believe the US could benefit from the same analysis.
The Peace Dividend delusion has allowed politicians to safeguard their electoral prospects by shifting Defence spending to social provision and even war in Europe hasn’t enabled them to pivot back to Defence, the first responsibility of the nation state. They want all the other stuff…
Linking what you spend to what you can do is an essential reality check both for the politicians and voters.
So presently that’s not much and in future the double lethality plan has yet to deliver. Rachel from accounts may listen politely to Lord Robertson who chairs the Strategic Defence Review but she hasn’t found any cash down the back of the sofa. None.
Just heard an interview with Robert Fox the Telegraph defence correspondent ,he does not paint a good picture apparently in Talin yesterday Starmer was asked to make his position clear on defence spending clear and he didn’t! Also Rachel from accounts has told the SDR team whatever they come up with there is NO money available to implement it!
For the last 30 years the UK (and other nations including the US) has lived off equipment purchased in the cold war, cutting and cutting instead of replacing, all nations have now reached the point that equipment cushion has run out and therefore we need the level of defence spending last seen during the cold war but there is no political will to do that. The suprise will not be Russia as they’re living off soviet equipment mainly with the odd modern capability but when China decides the moment is right to announce it’s presence in the world as a superpower.
Starmer/ Feevex have a simple choice
1) fund the military properly
2) find the money to fund a war with Russia.
Option 1 is by far they cheaper option.
The uk purse is in a mess, so an increase in budget isn’t realistic. It do however think that there is room to massively improve how the current budget is spent to increase the capability.
“Doing our best to educate people to the threat”????? If people are so stupid pig-ignorant dolts that they cannot see the threat then we’re doomed, doomed I tell you. Apart from old soft hands in number 10 and the cyborg in number 11 only a cretin would be able to watch the news for 5 minutes and not see the world going to hell on e-bike!
I believe E-Scooters are bad for Russian generals health!!