In a recent report by the Defence Committee, it has been alleged that the UK government is only committing to the “bare minimum” of the necessary defence spending.

The information came to light after correspondence between the Committee and the Secretary of State for Defence was published alongside the Government’s response to the report, “Special Relationships? US, UK, and NATO?”

The Defence Committee has asserted that the UK government is merely adhering to the “bare minimum” in terms of defence expenditure in the current geopolitical and macroeconomic scenario. This information was disclosed by Tobias Ellwood, the Chair of the Defence Committee, in his letter to the Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace. This follows the Government’s response to the Committee’s report, published earlier this year in March.

In its response, the UK government reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining defence spending at a minimum of 2% of GDP. However, Ellwood raised concern that UK spending as a proportion of GDP may soon be surpassed by Germany and France.

“This investment is the ‘bare minimum’ required in the current geopolitical and macroeconomic context,” Ellwood wrote, posing the question of whether the Government is troubled by the looming possibility of being overtaken in defence spending by other major European powers.

In addition to the spending issue, the Defence Committee has requested more information about the UK’s role within NATO, particularly post-Ukraine conflict. The UK government claimed that it has been leading initiatives within the NATO alliance on industrial capacity and stockpile replenishment, following the Ukrainian conflict.

“The Committee calls for the Secretary of State to provide more information on what this leadership has involved, and what the Government has achieved in this area so far,” the report notes.

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

143 COMMENTS

  1. We are being left behind by almost every major power, if not now than in the near future. I’m only glad that most of them are on our side. China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Poland are all moving forward. We have two conventional advantages over some, namely seven attack boats and two carriers and I won’t comment on the latter. Apart from that we are stagnating and if any of the leaked performance criteria are right it’s about to get worse.

    • Indeed, further cuts to the Army are starting to appear.

      We can achieve more with less seems to be the current plan of action, a total disgrace and a very poor reflection on the members of our armed services who rate amoung the very best in the world if not the very best.

        • A reduction in army numbers to 73,000, but let’s wait and see.

          It appears we might be taking the Dad’s Army approach. Let’s hope they are only kidding Mr Putin!

          LINK

          • That’s what I mean, they’ve long been announced, so they’re not “further cuts starting to appear.”

            I thought you’d read of something new that I had missed.

            If, in the DCP, there are no further headcount losses but reform of the army ORBAT, meaning its deployable brigades, CS CSS and RA up lifts then that’s all a positive.

            An army of 73 or 75 or 76 thousand is little different without the kit, logistics, and organisation to effectively deploy at the scale of 1 Division, as mandated years ago by HMG.

          • Just looked at that link.

            73 ok is long announced, old news.

            Establishment of the GRF….That was a few years ago!

            Ex regulars in a reserve force? Yes, the Regular Reserve, been around since time began.

            That’s a list of re announcements, of which HMG are notorious, and old news mate.

          • Yes well aware of the reserve force, I served in them for 4yrs.

            Thank you for the update.

          • Ah, so you’re ex military too Nigel. Don’t recall you ever mentioning.

            What Corps?

          • Hi mate, this will make you cry, just seen on ‘Breaking Defense’ the UK is apparently going to cut the number of NMH cabs from a maximum of 44 to somewhere between 25-35 cabs (25 then!!). Apparently due to funding issues no less!! Still no announcement on when/which cab or when we might expect it in service.

            So yet again, less to do more. There comes a point when enough is enough. Either fund it properly, or get out of the helicopter lift business altogether – last person to leave please switch off the lights!! This came out at RIAT 2023 it appears, just before the DCP is released, so, less bad news contained within it I imagine!!

          • No real surprise is it. Just buy a cheaper OTS to get the number needed, don’t fiddle. Then we get the Comments UK industry need and so on.

            So I ask again, is the Defence budget for the UK MILITARY OR UK INDUSTRY?

            Sooner or later we must decide, or the military shrinks to zero.

            Having said that, I’d settle for 30 and leave the Dauphins out if it. I don’t get why they’re in there.

          • For some things that are luxury nice to haves you decide what you are going to spend and get however much you can for the money you allocated….for things that are necessary you have to decide how much/many you need, find the best over all deal ( in the long term not short term) then you need to stump up the cash..not decide how much cash you want to spend then buy the number you can get…HMG seems to have forgotten that simple truth. There are essentially two different paradigms for spending money on nice to haves vs needs to have…library nice to have…statues nice to have…high speed rail link to the north nice to have…rotor for army so it’s solders don’t get killed and maimed or we loss a war..need to have.

          • Hopefully, all is not lost, if we can get to 30.
            As I said in another post, 44 was way over what the force was using by my estimate? We only have 24 Puma.

            3 Bell for SAR in Cyprus, 6 Dauphin for UK SF, 3? for the JWS in Brunei.
            They’re not the vital BF role you rightly mention.

            The only possible positives I can see?

          • Good Point, the really important role is the puma replacement for that the RAF need a 20,000ib max take off proper medium lift rotor to replace the 24 puma on a one to one..I really don’t understand why you would bother replacing the 6 +2 Dauphin to be honest as they are only 10 ish years old..but if you are why the hell replace them with a 20,000Ib take or weight full fat military medium lift ? As for the bells, just replace them with a civilian rotor.

            So your right 30 would fine…just replace the dauphins and bells with a smaller medium lift when needed…..maybe the AW139..everyone is buying them these days and the US are actually trying sell it to us for the main medium lift rotor…that would be ridicules if we ended up buying an AW design from a U.S. company that builds them in Poland….( in it sure they Leonardo are not offering both the AW139 as well as the 149…although the 149 is by far the better Military rotor…).

            we also need to remember the 30 Eurocopter EC635s ordered to replace the gazelle, it’s got twice the take of weight as a gazelle and can carry 8 troops…so although a light rotor it’s almost hitting the very light end of medium rotor land and could probably do SF work.

          • The issue with the Dauphins is that they were never future proofed, they are what they were. We purchased them as a replacement for the A109’s with not much in the way of any upgrade in capability (slightly more power and ever so slightly more cabin space) and designed to carry the 4 man Light Assault Team’s (LAT’s) of the day plus a 3 man crew. In the time that we’ve been operating them the LAT’s compositions have changed significantly in regards to numbers and equipment and the N3s just aren’t cutting it anymore. It’s not uncommon for them to have to fly single pilot and ditch the crewman in order to free up capacity.

            There is also much speculation that a ‘657’ type Sqn will return with NMH which would allow cross pollination of crews between ‘657’ and 658, rotation of aircraft and surge if required. Financially it should also make sense as it reduces the different types in the fleet.

            Another rumour that’s flying around the bazaars is that the RAF won’t have a huge stake in the operation of NMH and will focus primarily on Chinook in regards to rotary. I suspect the Cyprus Flt (previously Griffens, now Puma) will be the only RAF operators (there is a lot of politics currently at play within JHC at the moment so i’ll be careful what I say. as you know much can change rapidly) With this in mind I think even 30 platforms is optimistic and I would expect somewhere between 20-25 sadly. I hope I’m wrong.

          • Ah, so that’s why a bigger type is needed for 658. Thank you.

            657…another capability never replaced. What happened to the 4 SF Wildcats? For a time that rumour seemed a firmer one?

          • What I can tell you is that many of the former AAC Sqn numbers that were disbanded in recent years have been reintroduced as HQ Sqn’s. For example 654 Sqn that had previously been disbanded has returned as 654 (HQ) Sqn, 4 AAC. The 657 Sqn number has not been used for this as it was to be held back for re-introduction in the future.

            There was an option tabled for 657 Sqn to convert to WC on the retirement of Lynx 9a, however DSF’s opinion was that this would be pointless as it couldn’t fit the requirement and that they would be better sticking with 9a (obviously wasn’t an option). Strangely the shakeys seem to really like WC for some of their work but I suppose that’s very specific, it really doesn’t fit with the role that 657 were designed to fill.

            UKSF have been very clear on the platform that they would like, most of us can probably guess what that is but we’re probably unlikely to see it.

          • Yes, that type has supporters here, including me. And you going by past comments.
            Thanks for the detailed comments mate.

          • Is that so, I did not know.
            I agree, and it forms a part of your own ORBAT set up mate. 😀

            In the 2010 cuts, the AR, not RR, was to be expanded to cover that reduction too. They always use the same old ideas.

            Them mentioning the GRF as being a “new” force is excruciating, unless it is being vastly expanded. 1 Div maybe rather than 16AA?

          • Didn’t want to be smug.

            As for the GRF, hard to say, too much rumours and press leaks happening, I do t think 1 XX in full will be a GRF though, 7X in light mech will be a bit difficult to punch out the door on 5 days NTM, even if we had the lift. Maybe 4X and 16X combined to provide 2 battlegroups “at readyness” with 7X as a follow up battlegroup?

            Seems like Field Army is going to get quite a reorg.

            Throwing a guess out there but: Maybe a light, heavy, reserve 3 division structure and Field troops?

          • We shall see. It is going to be chaos reorganizing the ORBAT files again if we get that sort of wholesale reorg.

            On 7x, could it be a 3rd manoeuvre Bde in 3xx? I know it does not have the armour beyond Foxhound. I guess I’m visualizing a modern day 24 AM Bde, without the air mobility, In depth behind 12 and 20X with beefed up ATGW, precision fires. Probably unfeasible murmurings on my part.

            Or, and we’ve touched on this before, dedicate it to Norway and introduce the arctic role more widely to the army? The new NATO force plan has not been released yet.

            Better still, with the possibility, likelihood of more Boxer in the longer term, mechanize it to a heavier level, save the KRH from conversion, place them in it, and hey presto, a 3rd Bde back in 3 XX?

          • So you’re visualising a mechanised force on wheeled protected mobility vehicles that can act as a sort of fast moving, self deploying brigade in support of the armoured brigades? Possibly on Boxer? Okay Nick Carter 😂

            I could see it though, with 4, 11 and 16 remaining in 1XX as the GRF.

          • Yes, suppose I am. At least that is an uplift and not cutting the heavies for it. And I’m keeping Tanks!

            What always annoys is, beyond the need to cut, I don’t see why they did not just use one of the two deployable Bdes that had CS CSS at that time ( out of the 7 in 1 UK Div back in A2020 days ) for the Strike role and keep the 3 AI Bdes as is.

            Carter….

          • Didn’t some of the CS and CSS from 1 XX come over to 3 XX to make 2 Strike Brigades possible?

          • It gets harder to track with each year with the changes, but yes, 1 Bde worth of CS and CSS was found from 1XX, and 1 from 3XX, 1AI X.

            So 3 AI Bdes reduced to 2, 1 becoming a Strike Bde, and the other Bde which would have come from 1 UK never fully formed as it was that Strike Experimental Group.

            The key point for me is, until A2020R, we had 6 deployable Bdes that had their CS CSS.

            3UK. 1, 12, 20 AI Bdes.
            16 AA Bde.
            In 1 UK, 7 inf Bde, and one or other of 51st and was it 4 Inf? All 3 had a Jackal Reg and 2 of those Bdes had a regular RA Reg, RE Reg, RLC Reg, RE Bn. I forget the set up of the RAMC I think one of the regs at Preston had already gone.

            With A2020R more CS CSS got cut. Which is why I wish they’d left the Reaction Force, 3 UK, alone, and uplifted those 2 Bdes in 1 UK, who were part of the Adaptable Force.

            We now have the CS CSS for only 4 Bdes, and bits for others like DSRB.

          • Army 2020 (2015)
            https://i.imgur.com/QOo4hxU.png

            Army 2020 Refine (2018)
            https://i.imgur.com/YpW01gn.png

            Nothing was organic to the brigades in 1 XX, all was held under their own capbadged brigades elswhere in the force structure in both set ups. 2 Med in Rutland was the one that disbanded, and even then it wasn’t a true disband, as the squadrons simply where moved to other Regiments. (I think they used 2 Med to beef up 5 and 3 to be Strike CSS).

          • Yes, that’s right.

            Was the same set up with 3 Div. I never got why they grouped the likes of the RE and RA regs in their own groups and the CS Sig Regs in another rather than just binning those formations and grouping them directly.

            I don’t recall such pre 2010?

            1 UKs Bdes always stood out as pretty bare on the RS side apart from the divisional Reg at York. Assume that reflected the less complex Bde assets?

            I still struggle with the RAMC internal Sqn movements and the 2 FH are becoming MMR next month I think , so more changes.

          • Another reorg? That’s unbelievable. Still if we get a better Orbat from the one in FS, why not?
            Perhaps its also time to lok at the organic transport for light role battalions. Daniele and I were exchanging posts about this – not sure if they have just got quad bikes and a handful (Bn pool) of TCVs.

          • I don’t think we’ll see huge changes below brigade level personally, mostly just resubordination of 1* assets. (My thought), so eh.
            I recon Daniele is right, and we’ll get 7 X in 3 XX, 16 X in 1 XX, 77, 11 and maybe 19 X in Force Troops, and maybe LWC in Home Command.
            I don’t think you’ll see any investment in organic life for Light Role battalions beyond what already is planned. For starters there aren’t many left (only 19X and 4X are light role atm, the chances of 19X getting any sort of deployable uplift are 0, and 14X is already long term planned to transition to LPMV’s).

          • Ben Wallace spoke for little more than 14 mins by way of briefing Parliament on DCP 2023 today – and incredibly failed to mention manpower numbers, deployed operations, structure and details about specific equipment procurements.
            That quite took my breath away.

            Think I’ll read the document now to see if the above is covered.

            14x – thought they folded on 31 Oct 44.

          • Mate, I have read the nitty gritty that we are after, that is unit and structural changes, so primarily the army, will be in their internal “Project Wavell”
            Not yet released.
            HMG make this hard so it is difficult to keep track of, little cuts here and there missed by most, subtle changes that impact capability.
            Defence policy, finance, structure should be agreed in croos party Parliament for 10 years to give some certainty. Till then, it is at the whim of Politicians ideologies and priorities.

          • Thanks. Not sure when ‘Project Wavell’ will report.
            John Healey criticised Wallace for the lack of cross-party consultation.
            I have not read the DCP but will look at it in the next day or two.

          • You’ll need a few spare, bored hours! It’s a long splurge of buzzwords, refs to how much extra is in the budget, and long existing capabilities rehashed as new and ground breaking. It’s a good generalisation for the average civilian with next to no military knowledge.

            Wallace states on the 1st page that there is no detail on platforms or new purchases because “We stand by what we said in 2021”

            I did pick out various sentences of interest, including the same old contradictions.

          • Thanks mate. The whole point (only point) of course of the 2023 ‘Refresh’ was to fully take on board the lessons from the war in Ukraine. Wallace specifically had said that he would look again at tank numbers yet I bet we still lose the 3rd armd regt and upgrade only 148 tanks.
            Similarly I understand the army still comes down to 73k regs. He made a weid remark apparently that if we went back to 82k, then those ‘extra’ troops would only be armed with ‘pitchforks’! What do they have today? Certainly not pitchforks.

          • What he meant by that remark was that he’d need, by his estimation, 5 billion to equip them properly, be that IWs, vehicles, ATGW, and all the rest. Then pay and personnel allowances, and all the rest. And that would come from the wider defence equipment budget, which would wreck other areas.

            And in that I can see his point, and have said it here before.
            An army of 73K CAN form a fully equipped Armoured Division, with extras like 16AA and the tail, as mandated by HMG in 2010. It needs to be equipped properly, organised properly, given the required firepower and CS CSS.

            Poland’s army is currently smaller and I read they have 4 Divisions, though of course they lack the wider army defence responsibilities the UK has so they can organise differently.

            The headline figure of 73K on its own is meaningless, since we know 73K do not deploy. John Healey must know this, but still repeats it with no indication of how he would do it differently.

            The Shadow DS makes great play of moaning over headline army numbers but ignores that they need to be effective, and so does the wider army ORBAT.

            We lack the CS CSS as it is for what we already have, never mind restoring the 82K headline by adding 10 thousand more soldiers with the likes of Capita in recruitment.

            73K is fine, but do it properly.

            This is why I don’t bemoan army personnel numbers here. I do bemoan equipment losses, and the ORBAT organisation.
            Extra personnel for me should be in the RN and the RAF, which I prioritise. But as you are an Army man, and will disagree of course, I respect that.

          • Thanks Daniele. Current defence budget (this years) is set up to pay 82k soldiers (I knowwe have fewer in practice but budget is set to Unit Establishment figures), supply them with accomodation, personal kit, weapons, vehicles.
            Clearly a decision has been made to buy something else (who knows what – it could be army, navy or air force kit or to spend money on married quartes imrpovements – really, anything) within the defence budget and to balance the books therefore by cutting manpower numbers.
            If navy or RAF numbers were cut by several thousand then we would not be able to man a number of very expesive ships, submarines or aircraft. However no-one seems to be much concerned if the army can no longer crew a third armoured regiment or have enough CS/CSS for all the brigades.
            Certainly we can man a division from an army of 73k troops, even a ‘proper div’ of 20-25k rather than a new beancounter div of 10k – a one shot operation will only last for so long based on past examples (except if we are talking about war with Russia) – and the army will cope for this limited period. The rest of the army would be struggling to do everything else.
            I have a concern that our ability to do enduring operations has been hit – to deploy a small brigade for several years would require extra manpower from the AR/RMs.
            What is the case for more manpower in the RN or RAF?

          • 14X I meant 4X of course.

            As Daniele said, we weren’t going to get the nitty gritty, as much as I was hoping for some crumbs (or being able to talk about things I already know), but no such luck.

          • Dern, I left the army in 2009, aged 53. I got a letter saying I was now in the Regular Army Reserve of Officers (RARO), but I was not given any kit to retain and the annual reporting/briefing requirement had long since disappeared – I heard on the grapevine that previously you reported somewhere annually, your retained kit was checked (exchanges done if required), you got a briefing on ‘todays army’ and a days pay! I did not get that or a letter later (at age 60 or 65?) to say that my reserve service period had ended.
            Really slack to have let this one slide for decades.

          • It wasn’t required. During the cold war the Regular Reserve existed essentially as the core of the next “Kitcheners Army,” growing the next wave of soldiers while the Regulars and TA fought it out with the Russians in Germany. Once we moved to stabilising and peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghan the need to surge a strategic reserve really did go away (we never even surged a TA battalion!). In terms of things to cut for saving money, it’s hard to disagree with letting the RR slide in favour of keeping actual regular formations, since it’s also relatively easy to re-establish (minor grumblings from the veterans aside, what are they going to do? Sign off?)

            But yeah, if you need to have the ability for the army to expand quickly at minimal extra cost then it makes sense. Just need to make sure there is an orbat, kit and vehicles for them when they do.

          • Thanks mate. I wouldn’t have thought it cost much to run the RR scheme per year, so perhaps it was because there was no perceived need, post Cold War, as you say. Your Orbat, kit and vehicles point is key – some think that there is not enough kit for the AR, let alone the RR.

          • Recruitment freeze, I believe I’s now in place. Very convient, numbers down, so less redundancy payments abd reinforces the narrative, that the army can’t increase numbers.
            Another joker in the pack, ULEZ, it means any unit within the zone, will struggle to recruit Reservists, as they have to pay the cost to enter the zone to train out of there own pocket.

      • Funny how doing more with less never applies to board pay, shareholder dividends, executive bonuses, MP’s pay or perks.

      • There’s an old saying Nigel isn’t there which is “it’s always the poor bloody foot soldiers” or something to that effect. Either way it’s always those at the front who suffer because of decisions made by those in comfy seats in London.

    • Completely agree, our spending, and also just as importantly our ‘bang for our buck’ are woefully beneath our actual national security needs. Years of governments of every colour salami slicing our defence base sadly!

      • As you say, Ross, money is not everything. Our decision making, time wasting and procurement are woeful.

    • Apart from Japan, all the other nations you mentioned are not islands and that is key here. Successive UK Governments have always hidden behind the fact we are an island thus giving us additional protection. This mindset is also evident in how much we are prepared to spend on defence. Sadly, the Defence Secretary position is not perceived as a key one around the Cabinet table and it’s unlikely to change in the near future. When military crises occur then and only then does defence get the priority it needs, but once it subsides the Government quickly returns to type.

      • I do think “the moat” has been used as an excuse but now all the emphasis is on global Britain and we can’t do that without a powerful FULLY EQUIPPED navy. The RAF is being trimmed by a lack of fulfilling proper procurement and as for the army…
        All three services can be improved without huge injections of cash. I just wonder whether anyone has the imagination to take the decisions.

        • The Moat has been just that in the British psyche throughout history and it still persists if only in our subconscious.
          In regards to ‘Global Britain’ the RN will receive the giant’s share going forward if the Chinese Navy aspirations continues to expand.

        • Sadly Graham M, defence does not generate votes unless there is a national military emergency. Due to that fact, it gets hit on a more regular basis than other more voter-sensitive departments by the Chancellor.

    • The uk is still one of the most powerful military’s on earth still more powerful than Germany and France Italy and Poland lol come on Poland yes they have announced a big buy in some land vehicles but look at there airforce and navy the uk definitely needs to spend more on assets but we are still a powerful military

      • No argument that we are a power but we’re standing still at best and with the army we’re going backwards. We are trying to be all things to all men and it’s not working.

        • All the services have been going backwards since the 1950s. Cut after cut after cut, with seemingly no end. That’s the truth. But there are always people prepared to say how it’s not that bad. Time to wake up! There is a full on war in Europe. At least Chamberlain started rearming. This lot just keep cutting.

          • Regualr army numbers have been cut once or twice a decade since the end of the Korean War (1953). Can you imagine governments doing that with the NHS, fire service etc?

          • MoD Civil Servants (CS) numbers have gone down and down – some say that is one reason for the many procurement cock-ups.
            CS numbers elsewhere have risen, of course.

          • Very true. The ” everything is ok ” argument when it’s blatantly obvious that things not okay drives me crazy. A good point made by Challenger below is that it’s not just the money, it’s what we do with it.

  2. This is all deliberate it’s no accident our armed forces are being and have been systematically run into the ground for decades. There is clearly some hidden hand that does not want the U.K. or any western nation other than the US able to operate unilaterally. Back when things were fresh in 1988 as a lad I picked up a leaflet at Leuchars air show in it HM had 160,000 in the regular army, 90,000 in the RAF and a navy of 59,000 (excluding RM)

    It is simply statistically impossible for every government for the last 40 years to keep the decline in capability going through incompetence alone for if it were simply down to incompetence then there would still be occasion where they chanced or fluked on getting something right (even a broken clock is right twice a day) but the fact it’s continually screw up after screw up and decline on a steady seamless trajectory leaves no doubt as to the deliberate nature of what’s occurring.

    The money to fund the forces could easily be made available but it never is. Billions can readily be made available for any war NATO supports anywhere or any globalist cause but never for our own forces…. go figure.

    it’s now self evident no mainstream political faction is ever going to change things. Yet the public continue to vote them in.🤪

    it’s also hilarious how the London boys in here desperate for us to go to war with Russia even though we have no ammunition 😂👍🏻. The German Ambassador stated on Sky few days ago in reference to U.K. and NATO as a whole

    “ We don’t have enough ammunition in our stocks to continue to deliver” …….

    Wait for it though the prevailing opinion in here will be fake news , Russian disinformation 😂🙈. Aye full steam looney tune 👍🏻

    🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

  3. Oh for god’s sake. All anyone ever focuses on is spending, spending, spending!!!

    We don’t have a small/underfunded defence budget by any means!

    Granted lumping stuff like pensions in does distort matters a bit but it’s hovering around 2.2% (£45+ billion) and even with inflation the recent commitment to an injection of further cash will push it closer to 2.5%.

    It’s how we spend the money that gets nowhere near enough focus. Dither/delay, changing requirements every 5 minutes, demanding UK specific modifications to off the shelf kit and gold plating niche UK equipment that has no eye on the export market.

    Procurement is completely broken!

    Same with the NHS and virtually every other government department. Extra money barely touches the sides when management is terrible and there’s no willingness to even contemplate reform.

    • I think someone needs to square with the British public about how there is a full scale war going on in Europe and that it has thrown up the fact we need to spend a lot of funds on catch up because Defence has been starved of money for too long.
      This had to be done during the Korean War, when it all fell on the Army and Navy because the RAF had virtually no planes that weren’t hopelessly outclassed. The Navy scraped through heroically with the bare minimum and the Army likewise. The RAF were caught out by a step change in technology. Not entirely their fault. Canberra’s were late and the MIG 15 changed everything. I never understood why the Hunter never had a fully moving tailplane.

    • Chronic short termism. And ask anyone who has ever been involved in procuring complex projects how to make it go wrong. Keep introducing changes will be the answer.

    • Bang on, my friend. Confusion seems to be the biggest single problem with U.K. defence and focus is the other magic word. We could greatly improve our capabilities now given some thought.

  4. According to the Daily telegraph HMG want x Soilders to be part of the Reserve force ,and yet talk going on about cutting 10.000 troops honestly what the hell is going on .AFV 40-50 some 60yrs old .Losing Ben Wallace who been a fine defence minister get a grip HMG .🙄 🇬🇧

    • It’s nothing new, and any soldier who bothers to look at their contract will find that they are retained as a reserve for a few years after signing off. It’s called the Regular Reserve and until the 90’s it used to get activated on a regular basis to check that they could be called up.

    • 77k to 73k is not 10,000 troops. We are way below the 82K figure and that is not currently attainable.

      As Dern says, the RR existed before and differs from the old TA, now the AR.

  5. With massive cuts after the cold war Britain is no longer a military super power except maybe for the navy, countries as Italy have a more powerful army than Britain now, even Spain has more MBT and artillery than the British army, very sad.
    And the problem is that things Will no change in the near future

    • I don’t mind the fact that countries like Italy having a more powerful army or Spain having more tanks. They’re on our side so the more they have the better. What I object to is the fact we don’t have enough across the board to meet OUR needs!

    • No one here ever says the UK IS a superpower. There are only one, maybe two of those.
      We are a major power, or a premier medium power, and remain so.
      Spain and Italy’s armies have more Tanks and artillery…that does not make them greater powers than the UK.
      Where are their naval, air, nuclear, and intelligence capabilities, and when did they last project military power at any scale over distance?

  6. It seems certain that next weeks defence command paper will rubber stamp further cuts in regular personnel (particularly to the Army) from current level, whilst headlining the MODs investments in advanced weapons (lasers, robotics, AI, UCAV’s, cyberwarfare, space ..). If and when these super weapons finally arrive (in the 2030’s presumably) in trivial numbers, it may be too late. The UK armed forces need deployable mass now as Russia edges towards chaos, and China wonders if a window of opportunity to invade Taiwan has opened. The current policy of a de facto ’10 year’ rule is madness. The world political landscape is not 1925 or 1995, when the West was completely dominant and no threats visible, there is no close analogy but 1938, 1950, 1962 and 1983 serve as examples.

  7. When numbers are already below what we need to fulfil our security & commitments, plus capabilities gapped, I’d say it’s worse than that.

      • Yes, that was 2013. I doubt many would’ve forseen the dire numbers we’re reduced to today, let alone anyone trying to reduce them further.

        • I was serving and was shocked but not surprised when the regular army reduced from 160,000 to 120,000. No-one was used to seeing redundancy notices flying around. But that was following the end of the Cold War – the Options for Change defence review carefully analysed the size of the army for the post Cold War world and set it to a mere 120k – the threat had reduced – Russia was finished, and wouldn’t be threatening to invade another European country ever again!
          All the cuts since then have not been about the threat reducing.

  8. So how would UK fair is in danger of attack? The answer IMO what would happen is conscription.

    The only problem with that is, cant conscript equipment.

    We are not a world power. not even a global power anymore. So what to do with our limited firepower.

    Make the UK into a fortress and keep our nukes – If not our forces will be spread thinly across the globe.

    I think a cheap way of defending the UK would be The Astute Class backed by cheap quiet Diesel-electric submarine UK DEFENSE measure. In short we need to think of our forces for defending the UK.

    • Who are we defending the U.K. from? Sharks? Pirates?. It’s not 1066. No invasion is coming to the U.K.
      So that leaves forces that can be deployed world wide to help allies and put off people from acting silly invading their neighbours.
      Keeping sea lanes open and supporting trade and goods movements.
      Using intel services and assets to have a good understanding of what’s happening around the world.
      OMG I think I just wrote out the purpose of the forces moving forward.
      What do the forces need to accomplish this and what do they already have. Fund it and purchase what’s required.
      Also I would have business dept helping fund defence projects made in the U.K. and tax/vat breaks, treasury support for keeping the money circulating in the U.K.

      • Yes, pretty much my view too. An expeditionary posture.

        Now go and read the Shadow DS comments on defence regards anything beyond Europe, and you’ll see why myself and others are worried.

        The two visions do not tally.

        • Having forces that can be deployed worldwide covers Europe, the DS should know that.
          What needs to be remembered is the Ukraine conflict is most likely the only big conflict we will see in Europe for a while and we aren’t part of it.
          Really more information is needed from government/shadow government as to what they want to accomplish going forward and how that will be done and funded.
          Until then it’s just hot air, apart from Ben Wallace I don’t have much faith that many government/shadow ministers had a clue about defence or what is required.
          One final thought I had today was do other countries fiddle with the forces as much as the U.K? Strike brigades, on/off, cuts here, increases here. Army seems to get the worst of the fiddling.

      • You never know who we might be defending from 10-20 years from now. History says our main worry has been Europe. Russia have never invaded us but we invaded them.

        No matter we need to protect our sea lanes and cables underwater – Diesel-electric submarines cheaper than Astute could do that, leaving Astute for your global duties and to escort the half a dozen jets on the carrier.

        When we are off helping out allies in the Indo Pacific and that probably will come. its a no brainer that we still need to protect the UK – Lots of ways to do that without spending countless billions. As well a quality we need quantity in all the armed services, most so in the Army and Royal Navy.

        Putin and Russia will always now be a danger in particular after supplying weapons like Storm Shadow. It’s not 1066 but with the state of our armed forces. it soon could be – Cuts, Cuts and more Cuts.

        • Cuts are a constant problem. While diesel boats have there uses the purchase cost and set up a new class of boats for training etc will be rather large. It’s probably not far off the cost of increasing the nuclear boats numbers.
          4 diesel boats or 3 nuclear boats roughly and about the same time line. While the costs would improve as more were made, suppliers developed etc the U.K. won’t buy like that.
          For submarines the U.K. is stuck with 7 astutes until SSNR design is ready and there’s space in the yard.
          If there was a threat to the U.K. I would put the money into unmanned submarines for coastal protection, U.K. based roles, offshore infrastructure monitoring etc.

          • To be honest seeing our money crisis, I think and have though for a while – Being hulls are the most of the cost – Keeping 10 Duke Class would be a decent option, no new steel. Yes maybe upgrades needed,

            That of course of course along with The new ships on order.

            Crew problem? recruit from the Ghurkas that the army have rejected,
            Unmanned submarines, not a big fan.

            Army is a problem and hardly any battle tanks – UK needs to restart it’s industrial base – Money has to be spent.

          • I think unmanned vessels have there uses just like reaper etc. Autonomous is a different matter.
            If the unmanned sub can patrol the cables with sensors to see changes blast a sonar/make a noise to put off anyone that shouldn’t be there it could be useful. Cost and abilities are the main factors to the usefulness.
            The U.K. forces are on the slim down but when I look at most other countries they aren’t in a better position.

        • I reiterate that being a Global Power does not mean you have huge armed forces although it does mean that you have globally deployable forces, nuclear weapons, are a UN P5 country, trade globally, have culture exported globally, have oodles of soft power, and a G7 economy – just to mention a few factors.

          The Henry Jackson Society said that Britain was a global power some 5 years ago, second only to the US and they considered many, many different factors.
          https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-study-ranks-britain-second-powerful-country-world/

          You are only looking at the size of military forces.

          • We may in name be a global power, that is just words.

            There are grumblings in the US over UK’s constant cutting. before it is said ‘nothing to do with US’ – I would counter than with why should US taxpayers defend EUROPE, and Biden if it came to it, may not.

            Look at some of the cuts – HMS Ocean – Hercules – Tanks – F-35 cut back on original order. A Duke Class frigate vanished we had 13 Duke Class – 6 destroyers making 19 that’s bad enough now there are just 12 frigates. We are supposed to have the largest defense budget (not by GDP) so where has the cash gone?

            We IMO are not a global power anymore with a 73000 army and just 148 main battle tanks.

            You are right – I am “only looking at the size of military forces.” – Surely that is enough – Soft power can;t bomb shoot or even fly. So can’t count that.

          • The frigate situation is worse. It’s only 11 frigates now, Perhaps going down to 10 depending if HMS Westminster gets refit. Supposedly she is paused before starting as she is in a bad way that will take a lot to fix.
            There are some success stories in defence though. 1000 jamming buster boxes been bought. NSM, mk41 launchers on new ships, radar and ECM upgrade. Reversing camera for warrior😂

    • Another problem is that you could not conscript fast enough in time of emergency. Capita takes up to a year to get people from civvy street to the training depot, then an Infantryman needs a 6 month course. Other trades require longer training. Even if you shave off a few corners, the war might be over by the time you have got people in and trained!

      • That recruitment problem needs sorted out. It should be weeks not a year.
        If some kid phones up and says I’ve been made homeless and I want to join the forces they should be able to stay somewhere while being assessed. Got to get as many as possible. The forces isn’t just a job it’s a whole life change. They become ur family

        • The army does not exist to be a refuge for the homeless – but is a career choice for all including the homeless.

          Capita (or Crapita) had their contract renewed not so long ago – goodness knows why. Recruiting as it was previously done was fine – go to a High Street ACIO and speak to a serving and experienced soldier (SNCO) – initial form filling was done there and then and (surprisingly) some fitness tests but that may be an urban myth (doing pull ups in the back room, allegedly!).

          • No not to be a refuge, time wasters would be found out at the first tests but there was an exSAS solider that said he was thinking about the army, then got kicked/left home, phoned the recruiter he had seen previously at school or somewhere and was allowed to go to instantly to begin assessments/medical etc. If that happened today he would be waiting a year and maybe would go else where. The army loses an SAS solider.

  9. “Former soldiers could be called on to join a reserve force in future crises as part of a planned overhaul of the military which would cut the number of UK troops, according to a report”.

    Well I cannot see ‘former soldiers’ signing up in droves… more likely **** *** or no thank you kindly!

    • It’s not optional, and it’s already in their contracts. It’s called the regular reserve and every ex-soldier is liable to be called up for service. It used to be exercised regularly too, just to make sure we retained the ability to muster the men and issue them kit (they rarely actualy deployed beyond the muster point though).

      So no, they don’t need to sign up.

          • I named Chetwynd Bks at Chilwell as the Reserve Mounting Centre is/was there, so assumed.

          • RR annual reporting was abandoned decades ago, but I thought it was at your local military barracks/base (ie TA Centre) rather than a single centralised one.

          • Morning mate.
            Yes, that seems logical.

            I was more thinking of the point of drawing kit, weapons, and onwards deployment to an Army Training Centre, ranges, wherever, before onwards movement to unit.
            So the force has reported already at the ARCs, and I’m assuming there is a midway house before onwards to unit?

            I don’t think all the ARC’s have that comprehensive an armoury and stores to draw at point of initial reporting in?

          • My understanding is local ARC for initial processing then on to Chilwell for training packages, medicals, kit issue and all that guff.

  11. They will have to sort it out soon Russia is considering attacking The Suwalki Corridor from Belarus this would draw Poland into the war

  12. And nowt as changed. Whenever I see these comments I remember that cartoon of the Queen and the first sea Lord standing on the deck of the Britannia looking down at 5 Admirals sitting in pedalos ” of course ma’am they are not all our we hired some from Butlins” !

  13. The UK has inadequate force levels, and no strategic reserve.

    From a naval perspective, The UK needs to quickly revisit the previous (pre WWII) practise of annual contracts of new builds, what is not utilised by its armed forces, and then on-sold to allies, should be laid-up in reserve (for the rainy day coming). The T31,32 and AUKUS barely scratch the surface of what’s needed.

    This will stimulate growth in the industry, leading to competition for contracts and greater economies of scale. If HMG was smart enough, there should be contracts for the re-birth of HM Dockyards construction capabilities.

    The alternative, with barely a 12 available surface ships and half that in submarines is to raise the white flag and learn Chinese and/or Russian.

    The same could equally be applied to the BA and RAF.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here