The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has reaffirmed its commitment to developing uncrewed maritime and amphibious drone technology, emphasising its integration with crewed platforms as a key element of the Royal Navy’s future capabilities.
Responding to a written parliamentary question from Johanna Baxter MP on 24 February 2025, Defence Minister Maria Eagle outlined the UK’s approach to advancing unmanned systems for naval and amphibious operations.
Maria Eagle stated:
“Integrating uncrewed systems with our crewed platforms is a critical part of ensuring the Royal Navy can effectively respond to competition, crisis, and conflict in the future. Delivering uncrewed systems will feature heavily in the design specifications of the Multi-Role Support Ships – the next generation of amphibious ships to support the Commando forces.”
She further highlighted that the MOD is actively working with industry to assess the potential of these technologies, conducting trials and spiral development while incorporating lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine.
The Multi-Role Support Ship (MRSS) programme is central to the Royal Navy’s plans to modernise its amphibious warfare fleet. These new ships, which will replace the Albion-class assault ships, Bay-class landing ships, and RFA Argus, are expected to play a key role in future amphibious operations and power projection.
Designed to accommodate a range of uncrewed and autonomous systems, MRSS vessels might feature:
- Well docks for deploying landing craft, amphibious vehicles, and unmanned surface vessels (USVs)
- Flight decks and hangars to support both helicopters and uncrewed aerial systems (UAS)
- Command and control suites for coordinating amphibious and littoral operations
- Flexible modular spaces for humanitarian assistance, troop transport, and combat operations
These ships will be integral to the UK’s future Commando forces, enabling rapid deployment of troops and equipment while integrating cutting-edge naval drone technology.
The MOD recently confirmed that the MRSS programme is progressing well through its Concept Phase, as outlined in a January 2025 update. The Royal Navy, in collaboration with Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), is conducting detailed work on key user requirements, conceptual designs, affordability, and exportability assessments.
An Outline Business Case is expected by mid-2025, paving the way for the programme to transition into the assessment phase in 2026. The first MRSS is expected to enter service by 2033.
According to the MOD, the MRSS will renew the Royal Navy’s amphibious capabilities, ensuring global deployment and support for the Royal Marines.
The MOD say that it is actively assessing operational lessons from Ukraine, where uncrewed maritime systems have proven their effectiveness in modern naval warfare. The war has highlighted the growing importance of unmanned systems for surveillance, strike operations, and logistics, influencing the UK’s approach to integrating these technologies.
One would hope that this is one of the programmes that gets speeded up with the new money and we get the full 6.
Hopefully these turn into some form of true multi role ship as well and not just an old style minimalist amphibious assault vessel. The RN really needs 6 good sized combat capable mother ships for carting autonomous capabilities into hot combat zones as well as to act as raiding/amphs support vessels ( something that can provide some organic air defence as well as precision strike)
Yes you would think 6 of these and 5 T32/31 would be a no brainer with the uplift. My concern is the number of assholes(exclusively ex army) currently doing the rounds on TV saying that for an extra £6 billion a year all we are going to do is sit still and the BOAR had 60,000 soldiers in it don’t you know and we can’t possibly do anything without 110,000 regulars soldiers (Reserves don’t count don’t you know unless it’s Russian reserves which we double count) This is specifically why the MOD doesn’t get more money all it does it… Read more »
Agree re the Army cheerleaders. There have been several planting stories in the media, especially the Telegraph, for years. It’s all the Carriers fault apparently, but we shall ignore what our own CGS did around 2015 self mutilating our service in the rush for wheels to play wacky races to Tallin because the French were doing it in Africa. I’m talking Strike. The dismembering of an Armoured Brigade. The mutilation of the two that survive. Bringing Boxer forward while Ajax Challenger 3 WCSP, so the recapitalisation of our then substantial Armoured Division, which was mandated in 2010 SDSR as Army… Read more »
What makes me really spit is that we could have recapitalised the army for a really the amount of cash that has been spent already… The French have got or are getting.. 2000 STANAG 4 , 25ton 6 wheel APCs 800 STANAG 4, 17ton 4 wheel APCs ( for air mobile forces ) 200 modernised MBTs 300 armoured cavalry vehicles 650 infantry fighting vehicles 109 155mm self propelled guns all for 12.5 billion pounds (give or take ) For around the same money 11.5 billion the British army has ordered 150 MBTs 650 APCs 550 armoured cavalry vehicles It’s a… Read more »
I’m making over $20k a month working part time. i kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so i decided to look into it. well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
this is what i do….. 𝐰𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/
French “650 infantry fighting vehicles”
What are those?
@ Alex véhicule blindé de combat d’infanterie programme.
Looks to be from the same program reported last week that the Irish Army is buying into. 300 assorted armored vehicles for the Irish army at a €800 million deal. Belgium and Luxenbourg are also part of the program.
That is a Boxer like (albeit with a 25mm gun) , so not tracked
Jim. Interesting post. I have yet to see multiple ex-army arseholes all advocating a return to BAOR. Who were they? A point worth making is that after careful analysis the Regular army was cut from 160k to 120k for the post-Cold War World ie collapse of USSR and WP. Multiple cuts since then have not been justified either by further threat reduction or reduced tasking. A regular army of 72k can do far, far less than the designed army of 120k.
all this mush from the ego of starmer government about the increase in the u.k armed forces beggars the question, if we can do it why are we removing perfectly good ships? echo, enterprise versatile vessels that could be reconfigured to do almost anything keeping some of the T23’s when they are still proving the doubters about them are WRONG. Monmouth and Montrose should have been kept going whatever the cost. the money is allegedly there so, yes they’re old, but the type is still relevant for a shipto be a worship it has to float move and if the… Read more »
There is no real uplift
we’ll have to seeing as we won’t have a ship for them.
Can’t we just retain our current existing LPDs? Cutting an existing capability to then try to replace it later at huge expense is folly.
Unless we sell Albion and Bulwark abroad and get over a billion for them both we shouldn’t do this.
That’s more a personnel issue than funding, but either way these vessels would be due to replace the old LPDs regardless.
As much as I agree with keeping the LPDs I would have a diffrent use for them. The vessels themselves seem to be in good condition so why not convert them to something we need in the future, a mother ship. With the size of the LPDs they could become command and control ships with the ability to carry ROVs, UUAVs, UAVs and USVs. Talk about alphabet soup. They could have extensive workshops for these systems as well as having an advanced radar suite serving as a forward deployed missile defence system, there could be even some space for Mk41s… Read more »
👍Exactly!
Only leaves an 8 year capability gap if they get delivered on time….in this new age of increasing defence budgets can we not keep one of Albion/Bulwark available?
Let’s hope so. I don’t think scrapping 2 LPDS of only a few available in ENATO should be scrapped. They are key capabilities we should be retaining. Announcing their scrapping and likely selling to Brazil is absolute folly.
not going to happen six is a fantasy number. we’ll still be waiting for Glasgow by the time one his actually built I think he whole issue is being overblown we’re not going to see the royal marines storming beaches anytime in the next decade. but keeping at least one of them should be done
👍
Has there been any clues announced where MRSS will be built? Given the timescales, both H&W and Govan are non-starters. Rosyth is possible. A&P/Laird’s perhaps. Another class assembled at Rosyth but with blocks built everywhere would be my guess.
Somewhere that has a gantry crane that can take life the blocks and large a dry dock for the size of ship.
Hopefully not Rosyth! I am still in hope for the stretched T31 design from Babcock to become the T32. Also depending on the size of them it mght need the bigger dock which is needed for the carriers. I think that H&W have enough dry dock capacity to build the FSS and MRSS (need to check that), but Laird is a real possibility with blocks built in several other locations and shipped to Liverpool. Did a quick check due to the possible beam of a MRSS being about 30-31m only number 5 dock wouldbe useable.
The dry dock in Belfast is huge, I’m not sure what else is on CL’s order book but I could see a joint bid from H&W and CL where some of the blocks are built in CL and them barged across the Irish sea for final assembly in Belfast. I think Rosyth will always have the carrier maintenance contract as Belfast is the only alternative and nationalist politicians would bulk at the very thought of a RN Carrier docking in Belfast regardless of the economic benefit. Too much rule Britannia and all that nonsense, FSSS and MRSS ships seem to… Read more »
Rosyth is a non starter due to the Submarine decommissioning, the T31 build and the need to have the build dock available 24/7/365 for the QE carriers. Babcock have the contract till 2032. TBH it’s all up in the air at present due to the SDR, the H&W fiasco and we need to get the FSS build going, once that’s done then someone needs to refresh the NSBS. TBH they really need to get H&W at Belfast up and running with the FSS and then deal with the MRSS, it’s got all the facilities necessary in one place. They can… Read more »
I’d not be so sure.
Some juggling will be done to make MRSS happen – of that I am sure.
It might mean that Babcock take a subcontract on the Belfast dry dock – not the H&W build dock but the other one that isn’t used that much.
The alternative is to build them on the flat outdoors/or indoors and use a bigger submersible barge to take them off.
With this sort of level of cash injection some creative thinking is called for to enable build paths.
Opening a fourth [fifth if you include Barrow] shipyard is not the answer.
I agree, get bulwark back and stretch the Bay class life out a bit until Belfast finishes the FSS.
If we are working with the Dutch on this we could ended up having some built in Holland.
Dutch only want Damen OPV-Fast Transport. They are out of full or big amphibious ships.
They don’t build ships anymore. All done in Romania and outfitted innNetherlands.
It will be Belfast or Rosyth that assembles them from blocks that could be made elsewhere.
Absolutely no point in trying to get a fourth naval shipyard going when it is hard enough to get the manpower and *management* for three yards.
Much better off running three yards flat out and investing properly in them so they can keep updating panel lines, coatings and automated handling etc.
Agree, last thing we want is a fourth yard. New budget might be just enough for 3.
We do have a 4th yard it’s called appledore…nice place for building extra blocks or smaller programmes like sea boats and landing craft.
The headline isn’t supported by the statement. Nowhere does it suggest that personnel will be carried by UAVs. It is taking a very long time to finalize the specifications of MRSS. The RN withdrew their idea from the 2022 10 year equipment plan, partly on the grounds of affordability. In the 2023 plan, it was re included ( contributing to the new £17b black hole). So over 2 years ago they had a clear idea what they wanted but are still working on it? If they’re so unsure what they need,, maybe they don’t need anything and the increased budget… Read more »
The Albion’s have a massive crew requirement for engineers (60) which the RN is desperately short on. This is the main reason they are going. The MRSS will have a massive crew reduction via automation as well as organic aviation facilities which Albion’s don’t have. With the new funds and a limited ability to spend them near term hopefully we see the Albion decision reversed. I understand scrapping frigates as they were f**ked and watchkeeper is now useless but the LPD’s are vital and still very capable. If we are fighting any where it will be in Scandinavia or the… Read more »
Jim I might have agreed except 2 days ago it was reported that Russia is producing 1000 tanks a year. Where they got that estimate from I do t know, maybe it isn’t true but I have no evidence to discard it either so can’t discount it. I am more confident about the lack of manpower that Russia can call on for some years with around half a million casualties, probably 200,000 + dead, a shortage of vital workers and popular discontent if a true nationwide mobilisation were invoked. Mind you it also concerns me what sort of manpower the… Read more »
Hi 1000 that’s a lot more than I’ve heard I thought capabilities were around 100 new builds a year then modernise around 200 so 300 a year.
I’m trying to remember a recent Perun youtube – not sure they are pumping out AFVs because they have run down even early cold war stocks.
Manpower is something different. How long does it take to train a tank crew member? And now the vehicle commander and then the Squadron commander? Russia will take years to regenerate these capabilities.
1000 might include recovered from battlefield too.
@ AlexS, I think that could be the only thing that makes sense..last time I looked they estimated the ability to repair damaged vehicles at 300-400 hundred..so with 100 new vehicles, 200 modernise and 400 repaired your up to 700 hundred.
Sadly for the crews and lucky for ukriane and the west I don’t the the full turret launched tanks are reparable..and they have had a lot of those.
I’m just picturing troops being stranded or landed in the wrong spot by driver less water-taxis. Could be catastrophic without some human and manual override. Bot-soldiers in bot-boats might be okay.
MRSS does not replace the Albions.
They were cut.
That’s like saying F35 replaced Harrier and Sea Harrier and the Typhoon replaces the Buccanear.
Both were removed to save money in short sighted cuts.
MRSS replaces the Bays and Argus, and we’d better get more than 3.
I think 6 is guaranteed now as it was top on navy shopping list and they don’t have much more to add other than 5 T32/31 from the wish list. The RAF and navy are likely to get a big piece of the new pie as both can show clear plans of what to spend it on, how that will generate lots more jobs in labour constituencies and how it will directly make the UK safer. The treasury will be pissed about having to spend the new money, they won’t be in the mood for seeing it spaffed up the… Read more »
To be fair, the loss of Land industrial isn’t the Army’s fault.
The MCMV motherships, phase 2 of MCMV autonomous, and MROSS 2 are also needed.
On the Army, yes. As I’ve mentioned often, I’d rather see it sort itself out at it’s current level, or with a small establishment increase, than any great expansion.
That means CS CSS and an ORBAT that is balanced and makes sense for what we already have.
But agree it doesn’t help the Army’s case.
If you gave army £13Bn they would waste it on a huge establishments and a small number of exquisite projects that never quite come to production and get cancelled.
Or they would waste it on buying piles of American kit that has no UK defence industrial boost.
You are pretty much saying… don’t give anything to the Army, as it will only be squandered away.
Hi M8, I have a funny feeling that the MCMV and MROSS may be wrapped up in a deal with Norway as they are going standardised ships but flexible ships which can do OPV, Survey and UAV MCMV and will based on either a VARD or Kongsberg design. Google Norwegian Navy Standardised Ships. I may be wrong but a work offset for the T26 would make sense as we would end up with both our high end and low end vessels standardised on both sides. Funny thing is most of Kongsberg designs are based on the RR commercial marine ones… Read more »
For God’s sake, please no.
Yes, going with Norway.
In the end there is very little wrong with an adapted rivers 2 for these roles, infact with its navel construction it’s probably a good choice from a survivability point of view. The Konsberg vanguard is looking cost effective from a patrol point of views, but can we really say that anywhere the RN is going to be deploying mine warfare are other drones will be benign..I personally think the RN and BAE got it very right with the Rivers 2 making sure it had warship level of survivability, infact I would say that because of drones all patrol and… Read more »
Evening m8, not to sure about this, but, have read that if this Chagos deal goes ahead, then the £ are going to come out of the defence budget!!! That would be a big chunk of any extra £ if true.
Yes mate, I’m reading that.
Labour are bring very vague about it.
Outrageous.
Why aren’t the Americans paying. They use it, we barely if at all.
I honestly think they are being vague about it because it’s dead..they want the US to kill it for geopolitical reasons.
Hi Jim, I don’t actually see us being in a position to do much with MRSS till FSS gets going and that’s down to the workload across the remaining industry. One thing we should learn from the Bulwarks is that they were Gold plated with a Cherry on top, whereas the Bays are one of best value and flexible platforms we’ve had in decades. If it were me I’d go for a large flexible, lean crewed LPD with a heli deck, hanger and plenty of generating power, nothing fancy but build 6 of them and equip just 2 with command… Read more »
What do you think as an interim capability going for something like the original Littoral Strike Concept with a large ferry based platform. Maybe even get the two original point class that were paid off back and use them.
I agree we need to avoid the gold plate for something as simple as an amphibious platform.
Jim to be perfectly honest the uplift will not add much extra and if it’s a choice between FSS or MRSS then it’s FSS every time, we can’t deploy the Navy we have without them. It’s also about sustaining the industry long term, we’ve lost U.K Land and it’s not coming back, same with small arms (except AI), artillery is being regenerated, Aviation is on a knife edge the only one on the up is Naval and it’s cost a fortune to regenerate / modernise it. Also it’s on the QT doing quite nicely on the export front, no export… Read more »
So would you essentially go for 2 RN and 4 RFA ?
I think RN has plenty on its shopping list. MRSS as you say T32 as you say Piles of A30 and CAMM [+variants] NSM stockpiles and maybe more launcher sets for T26 to provide missile mass and load-out with a medium price missile system Merlin numbers? Various munitions for Merlin etc A heavy weight drone program with *munitions* Ramping up the mine warfare and deep sea infrastructure protection program….lots to do there and real needs/drivers Something to put in all those nice Mk41 VLS that we are buying Change all the 30mm to 40mm on the new ships as they… Read more »
If we can replace Crowsnest, we can get all the ASW Merlins back for the next decade and concentrate on the replacement rotors. I think with both the NATO next gen rotor under assessment, and the possibility of selling a lot of Merlins to the Norwegians, I wouldn’t jump to order any for us just yet. When someone said that Leonardo were looking to offer Merlins as a package with the T26 to Norway, I loved it, because have you read the Norwegian helicopter requirements? They have three: ASW, special forces, and military transport. If they can afford a second… Read more »
Hi SB There is one thing the RN should add to that list and it’s a long slow project but will prove its worth for decades. A replacement covered facility for the Frigate refit complex, I know it’s not fighty or sexy but we really could do with it down the line. It doesn’t have to be a covered dry dock, it could be a huge DDH sized Shed with a hard standing in front and a Semi submersible Barge. I do have a question, given the tail off in T23 refit work could the Babcock workforce be used to… Read more »
Surely another shiplift is more expensive than a dry dock?
Even with the nuclear => conventional savings?
No Steel is cheap compared to blasting 0000’s of tons of bedrock out and a barge is a very cheap option. Take a look at how the RAN upgraded their Anzacs.
Nice list Supportive. Let’s hope the powers that be have the sense to do the sensible.
Jim, I know you don’t like the Army, but you really should give it a rest. The Royal Navy and the RAF also can’t recruit and the are haemorrhaging people. They too have squandered vast sums of money on projects that came to nothing.
However, at least as an ex Army guy, I understand the value of the other two services to the concept of full-spectrum warfare. Perhaps just grow up and realise that every one is a. highly professional and b. Devastatingly under-resourced.
Hi Daniele it really depends how many are ordered and who runs them also what capabilities they have. The old capability 2 commissioned warship, Amphibious warfare vessels, command and control capabilities.. 3 company size intervention . 67 vehicles and 8 landing craft 3 logistics landing craft, auxiliary not commissioned ( some people refuse to accept or acknowledge the massive legal limitations on this.. there is a reason the US does not have auxiliary amphibious vessels). No command and control only 1 landing craft. 1 role 3 and auxiliary aviation ship.. no landing craft no command and control Essentially whatever we… Read more »
Surely we need these to be through decks a la mistral america class. They would provide more adaptability as drones develop into the future as well as distributed slots should a carrier have issues
We need them to be cheap so we can get 6, they will also have to have their own organic missile capabilities for defence which does not sit well with a through deck design.
We already have two massive through deck aviation ships. I don’t think we need any more.
I think the Point Class might indicate the direction of travel – conversions of commercial ro-ro designs. Big and cheap. MV Ocean Trader
They are very badly suited for trade protection. Too large. Escort carriers were developed for a reason.
Also…. only 2 through-decks necessary? That is madness. We need a minimum of 4. By all means accept we can and will never get to that number, but treating the current number as optimal is insane.
I agree we need to think a little different and flexibly just afford to have one trick ponies even if in theory they can cover the carriers, just nota remote priority as nice as it would be and just start to become further big expensive targets with little utility in a shooting war.
Even the US has had considerable thoughts and re thoughts and doubts over just what is expected or is practical with the Americas with substantial changes initiated after the first two reflecting that.
Personally I think they should go with a 15,000 ton hull that has the defensive capability of a patrol frigate and precision strike option ( 57-76mm gun, CAMM, NSM) a good well deck and flight deck, capacity for a company level amphibious opp as well as acting as a autonomous vessel mother ship.
Do you work for MOD ? Because that’s Gold plating just like them, by the time you’ve added that lot you can afford 3 instead of 6.
Just remember that probably the most useful, reliable, flexible and cost effective ships in the last half century are the Bays. So maybe arrange for some of the cargo vehicles to be bolted down on deck (that’s if we ever get a replacement for Stormer) but other than that KISS and stick to a big steel floaty box with a well deck, flight deck, a simple hanger and a crew of 40/60.
If we had the escorts yes…but we don’t the RN even after the full T31 and T26 programmes will be down 11-13 escorts from the size it should be..so actually having ships that can look after themselves will end up being cost effective…the reality is the days of the simple big metal box wandering around on its own are gone.
What’s the point of that we don’t have sufficient numbers of Helicopters as it is.
Agree – a through-deck design would offer the best flexibility to line up helicopters to send off an airborne assault wave, like with HMS Ocean. Alas, I suspect the RN will be averse to anything that might even remotely be seen as a cheap alternative to the two carriers, so I suspect MRSS is going to end up being something like a scaled-up Absalon-class ship. i.e. Frigate at the front, transport at the back.
Surely not – Even in Avatar, they had pilots!
🤔 I think the theme with futuristic sci-fi movies and serials is that without humans prominently involved they might get a little unwatchable to the target audience, not to mention the need to make sure humans have a role in the various brave new worlds positive or negative. I remember in Startrek how the old human saviour had to take over from the ship’s computer to negotiate a meteor field or similar equally complex dangers quite regularly. Asking ChatGpt 4 to take over doesn’t quite have the same effect on the watchers’ psyche or give the right message, despite in… Read more »
Personally I think we should commission a number of the thunder-child, ironclad torpedo ram class, the only ship known to kill alien tripods on a 2-1 ratio
Remember when we were replacing the Gibratar patrol ships and one of the favourites was Safehaven Marine’s Barracuda (great looking boats with pop-up machine guns)? Well, Safehaven also manufacture a Thunderchild. 54 knots and tested in Force 10 gales, with a transatlantic record attempt under its belt. No Tripods yet, but they sound like they’d be up for the challenge.
Yes I did see they actually called a class thunderchild, someone must like their classics.
New ship’s that’s all well and good , however do think the RM would like to keep our two LPDs. It would be a welcome decision to keep them and wise. 🤔
By the time they enter service they will more likely be using drones to deliver drones. My main worries re the RN now centre around the fact that we have bought ships tailored to the cold war out of area/global policing role which is (or should be) secondary to hot war/high intensity conflict. This means that we have combatants with poor sonars if they have a sonar at all and no onboard ASW weapons excepting the helicopters. Even the Type 26s do not have an onboard ASW weapon of any kind if their helicopter(s?) conk out or the sea state… Read more »
If the US pulls out from Europe our carriers become more relevant than ever in the reinforcement role particularly in the high north. However, your comments about the weakness in our carriers is well founded but is much more to do with a lack of funding to equip them properly with suitable self defence capabilities, escorts and support vessels. As for dispersal of F35s on land as was done with the harriers that is unrealistic given their reliance on extensive support and maintenance facilities so they are far more vulnerable based at Marham than on an airfield that can move… Read more »
They also become very useful for ENATO power projection if the US leaves. ENATO already has millions of men and thousands of tanks but it can’t carry out operations past the eastern Mediterranean.
Even with a resurgent Russia the greatest threat to European security is still someone cutting shipping lanes in the Middle East and Indian Ocean.
The US won’t pull out of Europe. Have you seen or heard of a single asset that has been packed up and shipped back stateside? Nope me neither. At the end of the day, mighty as the USA is, its military forces cannot deal with China alone and the mischief that will play out if all of the USN is centred around Taiwan and all the other marginal players are doing the silly beggars routine. So USA need an alliance to help it. Trump is a dealmaker at heart. A very strange approach maybe but there is madness in the… Read more »
I do think we tend to forget that we in Europe aren’t the only close Allies the US has and for that matter we aren’t always the largest or most capable either. If the US goes toe to toe with China they will not be alone, they will have the Australians, S Korea and Japan with them and when you put that together it’s a lot of weight. For example between them they have more SSK than China which when you add them to the USN SSN’s makes a very potent force. And what could Europe actually do ? Best… Read more »
In really most of the US pacific allies will be removed from the board very quickly. South Korea is the classic, because you can guarantee China will use North Korea to remove South Korea from the wider geopolitical picture. Japan is the interesting nation. China will probably try to remove and isolate Japan from the US and if it’s not successful I suspect it will use a large part of its Ballistic missile arsenal to do very significant damage and it will keep going until Japan agrees a peace deal. We would forget at our peril that Japan has one… Read more »
The only deal Trump wants is where America wins, irrespective that it has at long last highlighted to the public the need for more defence here. The US are a completely unreliable partner at present whether they still have assets here or not. It’s a zero sum game with Trump, no principles. He’s not a deal maker, he’s a profiteer carpetbagger.
The only deal Trump wants is where America wins, even if it is only a perceived win. The US are a completely unreliable partner at present whether they still have assets here or not. It’s a zero sum game with Trump, no principles. He’s not a deal maker, he’s a profiteer carpetbagger.
Drone marines? Whatever next. More blah blah backed up by nothing. SNAFU. The UK is banjaxed.
We can argue about kit and capabilities until the cows come home. We need people in uniform to staff it. First thing they need to do is make it financially worth it for people to stay in. Conditions also needs addressing. No more reviews and committees action is required now.
This is all very well, but remains academic unless we get some hulls in the water.
Despite Starmer’s lack of frankness, it now seems clear that the increase AFTER FORECAST INFLATION amounts to around £5/6b per year by 2027. Since defence inflation normally runs higher than general inflation, the increase may deliver very little additional capability. The funding demands of DNE/ AUKUS and Tempest could reduce the effect of the increase even further. Better than a freeze or cut but perhaps not much.
The increased is 13.5 billion it will be 79.7 billion total, that will buy a lot of capabilities, if well spent an extra 70 MBTs would be less than .5 of a billion , 50 typhoons is 4 billion, lifex the warrior fleet would be 1.5 billion..
The level of apathy is astounding..if 2 weeks ago people had been told the 2027 defence budget would be 80 billion pounds they would have first been saying it will never happen and secondly how ecstatic they were.
Where’s the confusion from mate?
You seem extremely sure of your position, yet most are poo pooing the 13.5.
Why?
Because I’m a simple man and I take the amount that will be paid as the amount..others can play but it will not be worth as much in 2027 so it’s only really 6 billion pounds..that I’m afraid is just playing semantics for political games… If you noted the arguments I have had first people were saying…not it will not be 13-14 billion, not the budget will not be 80 billion, your wrong it’s only 6 billion added..now my assumptions are confirmed the defence budget will be 79.7billion in 2027/28 they have moved on to the argument…yes but it will… Read more »
Everyone is also forgetting that the core issue in defence spending is a capital spend issue, not an on cost issue..so if you have an extra 6 billion a year and you put most of that in capital expenditure ( as the MOD will) its huge..because it would be 6 billion a year…that’s 700 hundred boxers every year..over a decade that’s 60 billion in capital projects 10 aircraft Carriers… In reality what has crippled the armed forces is that drip feed of capital expenditure and taking money from on costs to help keep drip feeding the capital projects…free that up… Read more »
He’s just a poster on a rather insignificant comment site, nothing anyone types on here is even remotely interesting to those actually in charge, making decisions. You need to humour these people, let them feel like everything they say is important.
It’s not but they believe it is.
Come on DM, surely you can see just how little all these comments actually count ?
The irony, I’m pissing myself laughing my little friend.
Carry on believing your important big fella.
I’m going to try one final time to explain, then I’ll stop. The value of the pound is different in each of the two years, 2024 and 2027. They have different buying power, like two different currencies. The PM’s number is like saying ¥200-$50 is 150. However it’s neither ¥150 nor $150. Nor 150 anything for that matter. You have to convert one side before the subtraction to get a meaningful answer. If the budget is 64.4bn in 2024 and 77.8bn in 2027 with 11% inflation over the three years we can say the extra is either (77.8/1.11) – 64.4… Read more »
I understand inflation Jon but to say the raise in the budge is only 6 billion because of potential uncertainty around inflation is utter BS…2+2 is 4 in 3 years or 10…yes the purchasing power will be different..but that’s a completely unrelated and unknown variable…you cannot you it as an argument to say someone is giving you less than they are.
Who cares what you think ? Answer ? Nobody.
Οὖτις ἐμοί γ᾽ ὄνομα: Οὖτιν δέ με κικλήσκουσι μήτηρ ἠδὲ πατὴρ ἠδ᾽ ἄλλοι πάντες ἑταῖροι.
And like I give two shits about you.
obviously.