NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has announced sweeping new defence spending targets, including a 400% increase in air and missile defences and the collective purchase of at least 700 F-35 fighter jets by non-U.S. NATO Allies.

Speaking at Chatham House in London ahead of the upcoming NATO Summit in The Hague, Rutte outlined a transformative plan to strengthen the Alliance’s deterrence and warfighting capabilities in response to the threat posed by Russia and its strategic partners.

“At the Summit in The Hague, I expect Allied leaders will agree to spend 5% of GDP on defence. It will be a NATO-wide commitment. And a defining moment for the Alliance,” he said.

The proposed 5% target will mark a significant increase over NATO’s longstanding 2% benchmark. Rutte made clear this is not symbolic but grounded in hard operational needs.

“5% is not some figure plucked from the air, it is grounded in hard facts. The fact is, we need a quantum leap in our collective defence. The fact is, we must have more forces and capabilities to implement our defence plans in full. The fact is, danger will not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends.”

Under the plan, “3.5% will be invested in our core military requirements. While the rest will go towards defence and security-related investments, including infrastructure and building industrial capacity.”

Last week, NATO Defence Ministers agreed on new capability targets. While classified in detail, the scale of ambition is public.

“We need a 400% increase in air and missile defence,” Rutte said. “We see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above. So we will strengthen the shield that protects our skies.”

The targets also call for massive expansion in conventional and support forces:

“Our militaries also need thousands more armoured vehicles and tanks. Millions more artillery shells. And we must double our enabling capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transportation, and medical support.”

In terms of airpower, non-U.S. NATO members are expected to acquire hundreds of advanced fighters.

“To give just one example, America’s Allies will procure at least 700 F-35 fighter jets in total,” he said—referring exclusively to European and other non-U.S. Allies. This reflects NATO’s effort to boost interoperability and shift more of the security burden onto European shoulders.

Investment in emerging domains will also accelerate.

“We will also invest in more drones and long-range missile systems. And invest more in space and cyber capabilities.”

Rutte concluded this portion of the speech by underlining the gravity of NATO’s task:

“It is clear, if we do not invest more, our collective defence is not credible. Spending more is not about pleasing an audience of one, it is about protecting one billion people.”

The full proposal will be at the heart of discussions at the NATO Summit in The Hague, where Allied leaders are expected to adopt the plan as the cornerstone of NATO’s next strategic chapter.

Read the full speech

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

68 COMMENTS

  1. I think the chances of getting the likes of Spain, Portugal and canada to spend 3.5% is never going to happen. I’ve severe doubts that the Uk will do it.

    Then you’ve also got strategic black holes like Ireland freeloading, knowing they have to be covered by the rest of Europe.

    • There should be appropriate sanctions / penalties for countries that aren’t meeting spending requirements within NATO. Maybe a stepped approach based on how far below the spending requirements they are.

      Ireland and Austria should face pressure from the EU given that they’re not in NATO. In Ireland’s case possibly in the form of economic reforms to combat the creaming off of European corporate profits through its tax system. If it doesn’t comply I can imagine the rest of the EU will get very impatient and agree a deal with the US that is basically offers Ireland’s industries as a sacrificial lamb in return for a US trade deal. The US is rightfully annoyed at the EU and Ireland in particular for its trade practices and offshoring of industries like pharmaceuticals. Pressure could similarly be applied to Switzerland.

      Canada is a lost cause. They’ll soon find themselves isolated politically.

      • Canada is ranked 16th worldwide in dollars spent on our military. As PM Carney said just yesterday, Canadian military spending is about protecting Canadians not pleasing some accountants in NATO. NATO is an alliance of nations not a supranational governing organization hence the government of Canada will decide how much we spend on our military and Mark Rutte can shove his imperious edicts up his ass.

        • The Canadian military isn’t capable of protecting Canadians though, without NATO and, primarily, US assistance and support.

    • I think Mark Carney may just have changed Canada position, 2% to be hit this year and then increase it, they have also signed up for the European Defence fund. Trump visits Canada next week 🤷🏼‍♂️

  2. We can’t even fund our police force so the chance of meeting five per cent or even 3.5 is highly unlikely, unless the goverment plans to announce it now for 2040 or beyond…

    • If you double policing budgets you would just have even bigger police stations working utterly incompetently as solving ‘complex crime’

      Complex crime sounds Gucci but the reality is that most of the criminals are idiots with a degree of low cunning and a lot of violence. If you look at how it comes out in court there isn’t usually a lot to it.

      If you want effective policing make police focus on the basics and then watch feeder level crime plummet. You have to interrupt the journey to advanced criminality at some point.

        • It’s not just the Police that are underfunded – it’s the whole Justice system. The Court Service has been decimated under successive Conservative Governments with 20%+ real terms cuts since 2010.

          Court buildings have been sold and experienced staff have been laid off which now means court cases are now often seeing waiting lists of 2 or so years. Same goes for the Prison Service which doesn’t have enough trained staff and prison places.

          Same thing happened to lots of areas outside of NHS and State Pensions e.g. Education, Social care and …. our focus of interest on here, Defence!

          Unless we can increase public and private investment in UK infrastructure (transport, utilities, science, industry and technology) by c. 30-50% each year (every year, not just as a one-off) to match other countries’ spend, we’ll keep being stuck with the equivalent of continually rearranging an ever smaller number of deckchairs on the Titanic!

          • That is the problem that Welfare and NHS keep eating more and more of the pie there is less and less pie to go round.

            This was fudged over for years by
            – cutting defence
            – not investing in utilities
            – not investing in infrastructure
            – cheese paring everything else to fund the two hungry mouths

            All the time growth stalls because of stupid decisions and short term [intended to be but long term IRL] taxation to fix the balance sheet.

            Ultimately there needs to be a grown up conversation about what levels of taxation allow an economy to grow the pie.

            That then leads to what is available to tax/borrow/spend.

            The main problem is that nobody wants to have that conversation out loud as they are too obsessed with making space to interest groups = voters groups.

            People will accept a logical argument as almost everyone I talk to, that includes labourer level workers, agrees that what is going on cannot continue to go on for much longer if at all.

            Everyone has been hoping that the Economic Fairy appears and scatters some growth dust around but no sign of that…..

  3. 700 F35’s? I do hope the UK doesn’t buy any more F35’s. Lockheed Martin has a large backlog of orders, and the British versions can only carry one item of British ordinance. Maria Eagle confirmed in Parliament that the UK would buy either A or C variants, meaning at least one carrier needs upgrading to CATOBAR.

    We have Tempest coming in 2035, too. One hopes it will be an excellent design and an actual 6th Gen fighter bomber. If several videos of the Chinese 6th Gen plane are anything to go by, it has no horizontal stabilisers. Something we are told is a requirement. To be sure of a 6th-generation platform, vertical stabilisers cause too much drag and afford a larger radar cross-section. Yet all the mockups from BAE have been identical to the US F22. If true, it will be a generation behind and a total waste of taxpayer’s money.

    • But fulfilling HMGs primary interest, giving money to the MIC.
      Pork, as they know it in the US.
      I’m always amazed when people still hold out the hope British governments have ANY interest in Britain’s proud military whatsoever? Beyond the opportunity to create jobs and enrich shareholders buying tiny amounts of kit at eye watering prices, which keeps the MIC in the trough and the military thread bare.
      This 400% increase, will it involve HMG actually DOING SOMETHING like adding Sky Sabre Batteries, giving the RAF Regiment a GBAD role back, and re activating Cold War style hardened infrastructure at RAF Stations like Leeming and Leuchars.
      More widely, refurbishing old bunkers and other underground accommodation, like UNITER, which was sold off.
      It is always about tomorrow, which never comes.

    • Ah, but this is Trumps ‘Big Beautiful Deal’

      Trump likes big deal numbers….he will have personally sold NATO on F35B all by himself…..maybe he even developed it on the golf….I’ll eat my hat if I am wrong on him claiming credit for that one!

      So this and some other Big Beautiful missile purchases will keep that Tangerine Toddler quiet until his next tantrum.

      This is toddler management. Trump drinks coca cola and watches a lot of TV so expect bad behaviour when the TV goes off. So there have to be a series of these set ups until we can get an adult in the room…..

    • It will not be a generation behind just because it might have vertical stabilisers. That’s a ridiculous comment.

    • The idea that not having vertical stabilisers is “6th gen” is laughable.
      These “gens” are ridiculous. Marketing terms.
      I remember when to be able to super-cruise was “5th gen”, until the F35 couldn’t.

      • Yep. It’s just American marketing guff.

        There are a range of advanced capabilities available (networking, stealth, AI, EW etc.) but not every platform will need all of them. For cost reasons if nothing else!

        Sometimes a lack of cash can force a country to really innovate (and buck the American corporate bandwagon) e.g Sweden (AEW, EW) and Ukraine (drones, but also lots and lots more than that!).

        Necessity is the mother of invention and all that.

          • Cheers. I’ve no doubt it’s bloody complicated but as a veteran keyboard warrior with no expertise in the subject (and even less knowledge), I reserve the right (Magna Carta and all that) to spout unmitigated nonsense and assorted unsubstantiated takes!

    • This vertical stabiliser argument has to be studied in depth to get a real picture it’s not black and white. The same argument goes for canards, yet US renders show canards on the F-47 something many laughed at on the J-20. Indeed if you don’t have cranked tail surfaces you create other problems, you pretty much have to have canards to compensate within present fighter specific technology if you are to retain any level of acceptable manoeuvrability or control (especially during weapon release for example). This is certainly true unless you incorporate extremely complex and expensive active control systems which have their own complications/implications, so there is a complex balance in play here.

      Now the Tempest renders do NOT display a similar set up to the F-22 Raptor, far from it indeed. That aircraft has both vertical (extremely large vertical tail surfaces at that) AND horizontal control surfaces and the vertical ones are barely angled at all as a result, it’s gone for extreme manouverability no longer deemed vital these days. The Tempest renders are much more akin to the F-23 and the mock up Bae Replica designed back in the 90s. Thus it has a highly cranked single surface each side that does the job of both planes and reduces radar cross section and drag accordingly. The F-23 even back then was markedly stealthier than the F-22 and aerodynamically more efficient. One presumes things have advanced since then. Overall stealth is the result of a whole manner of combined technologies and design factors including the coating itself of course, the intakes are one of the most important aspects along with wing leading edges and engine nozzles which is why thrust vectoring is generally rejected now. Meanwhile both present US Boeing drone options, Ghost Bat and the Stingray use cranked tails.

      So cranked tail surfaces while not the most ideal solution all things being equal, is a very good compromise especially if their size is kept as small as feasible while retaining manoeuvrability pluses, either way these factors are all compromises that all aircraft designers have to consider and there may not be any one right answer, was the F-22 better than the F-23, arguable but almost certainly not but is still the benchmark 25 years later. Equally our bar is very much aimed at Russia and can’t see them matching our designs. The US and China may well decide removal of tail surfaces is achievable but we have to be realistic they both have much, much more investment both in the aircraft project itself and in the wide ranging research in all the various supporting technologies, be it electronics or mechanical or whatever and like it or not even if we have the capabilities to match them we won’t have the overall resources or the capability of buying enough overly costly and technically difficult to maintain aircraft. It’s unlikely that we can match US expertise in stealth coatings, I doubt the Chinese can either, but we may be better than either in other aspects. Does the cranked tailplane make the Tempest pointless? Of course not it may be only marginally less stealthy than tailless designs, the jury is out, otherwise the F-35 with a far less stealthy set up will be even more useless in that timespan if we consider matters that simplistically and considering stealth is, along with sensor fusion, which 6th Gen will take further, is its only real advantages over even 4.5 Gen aircraft, then its future would seem problematic if it was that simple an equation. Finally last week we saw an F-16 shoot down an arguably far more advanced SU-35 so I doubt cranked tail surfaces or not will determine the overall capabilities and effectiveness of 6th Gen aircraft and I suspect in the thirties different forms of stealth will be more o4 less effective against given radar set ups.

    • 6th gen is going to be a largely software orientated specification rather than physical. Sensors, automation, data links, targeting etc. The vertical stabilisers will be borderline irrelevant!

  4. I expect the only way we’ll reach this target is with some very creative accountancy! Prepare for HS2 to be declared military infrastructure!

    • Rail Baltica is…

      And what a great way to get the Furness and Cumbrian Coast Lines to electrified with CWR and MAS along the entire route with Bransty doubelled and the Dalton tunnels bored out. Great idea!

      Cheers, easy.

      • We’ve had one of the lowest infrastructure investment rates in the G20 for many, many decades now: 30% below the average each and every year (which unsurprisingly is the same amount by which our productivity – output per worker per hour – lags other advanced nations).

        We can see many from many examples around the world that if you invest in productive infrastructure, you stand to reap enormous economic benefits. Unfortunately, we in the UK seem to HATE investing in the future but we like to moan about the inevitable result.

        The Chinese have reached the end of the road as far as productive public investment into transport in concerned. They’ve built so much and so quickly, they’ve amazingly run of things they could productively invest in.

        We in the UK are so, so far off that position – we could easily spend ÂŁ20bn a year on road and rail improvements and we’d hardly touch the sides the hole that is the 4 or 5 decades worth of our underinvestment.

        Of course, the same goes for water, energy etc etc.; and…. for Defence.

        We have a lot to fix but depressingly apparently little interest in doing so. Shame really.

  5. Talk about pandering to to (US) bully. Considering the tariffs, US changed policy on Russia, Ukraine, I would not be rewarding the republicans dimwits (lowercase lack of respect intentional) with fat contracts.
    .
    .
    The europeans (I include the Brits in that description too) should instead rally and develop their own national (sovereign) aerospace solutions, like they use to, decades ago rather than 1. buy exclusively yank and 2. enter into multi-national requirement compromises by the big enterprises (this on the back of the recent Meteor missile integration debacle).
    .
    .
    Will it cost more? Yes, of course, at least initially, while exports from countries with no such capacity to design, develop and produce these aircraft may help longer term. Purely national, design and developed in-county, say goodbye to other nations (like the yanks) putting conditions of their use and weapons integration should be more on point and those expensive contracts will employee workers who pay taxes.
    .
    .
    I purposely would exclude the likes of BAE too, some disrespect intended, monopolising defence, consuming or compromising competitors over the years means the UK would not be getting value for money awarding any such programmes to them.

    • Why would you have to state that “Brits” are Europeans?
      The term “Brits” is a bit different when one has been called it in Northern Ireland.

    • Excluding Bae (even worse ‘likes of’) doesn’t leave a lot to do business with. It’s Europes only top ten Defence business by the way.

      • Did notice recently that Airbus Boss claimed that Europe’s two fighter projects, while combining isn’t realistic ‘at this stage’ (interesting) should however come together in systems and other assets wherever possible. On that I would agree, there is great sense in sharing various ‘add ons’ maybe even internals be they, electronics, sensors, support assets, weapons or indeed loyal wingmen where possible, even if it might be difficult to agree. As many weapons and pods as possible should be compliant to both if we truly want to compete with the US and others and add to our combined flexibility and lethality. Modular design promises to help here in ways the F-35 absolutely couldn’t exploit and is the foundation of its integration problems.

  6. When did Rutte undergo his damascene conversion to defence hawk? Not when he was Dutch prime minister happy to spend 1% of GDP, scrap the entire tank force and have warships inactive through lack of crews.
    His rhetoric may well make it harder for Europe wide progress to deliver some of the defence capabilities currently provided by the USA. Talk of thousands more tanks and afvs and hundreds more F35s is verging on the ridiculous. Given recruitment problems in many countries, who will man them?
    He would be far more convincing if he concentrated on areas of obvious weakness – GBAD, for example – and had a more realistic spending target in mind. 3% would be a 50% increase in the current target and would represent an increase of over 100% of actual current spending by many member countries. It might,just, be achievable. 3.5+1.5% of GDP simply isn’t.

    • He’s doing a Trump and highballing it. First because it might help chivvy countries to spend a more reasonable intermediate sum, and second to make Trump happy and keep the US on side. Words are cheap and if that’s all we need to keep the US inside the tent for the next three and a half years, it will be hot air well emitted.

      • To clarify, by highballing, I mean aiming high, not that he’s been drinking too many cocktails to make sense.

      • I agree Jon I hate this kowtowing to Trump but while we should minimise massaging his ego as much as possible (because strengthening his position will only damage us now and over his term and beyond) it’s important thanks to our previous neglect, to keep them onside for a good few years while we (hopefully) get real in our own means of defence. Thereafter a lot is out of our control as what happens that side of the pond will dictate matters for good or bad. I thought the German chancellor as does Carney played a good game in Washington, he played the confident adult in a room full of toddlers with Trump orchestrating their toys. We can only bend him a few degrees but any degree helps for now until we can speak from a greater position of strength to back the adult status.

  8. One aircraft, jack of all trades and the master of non with America ready to press the ‘kill switch’ at any time when something doesn’t suit them…………….yeah, great idea lol.

    • There is no kill switch. The concern is about the supply of spare parts being withheld by the Trump regime and the software updates as well since they’re supplied by the Pentagon through its military intelligence network.

  9. I may be a cynic but it looks like Bingo! to me. Payback for the US backing of the war in Ukraine that has inevitably upped the Russia risk.

    There are and will be more similar, like the weapons on those F-35.

    Lots of lovely profits and work for US manufacturers that often support their politician’s political funds.

    • Yeah as he has effectively shafted Lockheed Martin this is how he makes it up to them at Europe’s expense sadly. That’s what you get from decisions 20+ years back when on balance it seemed a good idea. Be it America or China don’t put your eggs in one basket especially when cost savings seem to be the driver of it.

  10. Hopefully the prospect of a larger production run for the airframes will drive down the unit cost for everybody.

    • F35A unit cost is about 20% lower than new Typhoons, which are a generation behind (although have a better weapons suite in UK serive at least).

      I expect that gap will only widen.

      Not sure about running costs though.

  11. I wonder if there is anywhere else in the world with 700 5th generation fighters on order and a standing army of 1.8 million that JD Vance considers defenceless.

    If china had those kinds of forces the US would be bricking it.

    • Ha ha. Yes!

      Ah, but don’t forget that we Europeans are lazy effetes, who have been corrupted by wokeness, feminism and godless marxism to enjoy the pleasures of socialised heathcare, social protections and a diabolical thing called ‘retirement’.

      Worse of all, we’ve have allowed our countries to become 3rd world slums through immigration (the Great Replacement Theory rears its ugly but all too inevitable head at this point).

      It’s more about their view of masculinity than anything else. Real men eat wild buffalo raw and wouldn’t be seen dead doing anything as weak as ‘cooking’ it. And so on. (Gun ownership probably plays into it somehow as well but being a namby-pamphy – and quite possibly an effete – European, I’m not sure in what way).

      Meanwhile, the Chinese are challenging the US hegemon so that means that they’re super duper dangerous. The fact that they’re also godless marxists just emphasises how despicable the Chinese really are (they’re also not big on gun ownership, which marks them out as lacking in ‘FREEDOM’ (trademark pending).

    • If we were unified they would be bricking it certainly, probably not encouraging our rearmament either. Part of our weakness has been due to it suiting Aus administrations to keep us weak especially politically so they retained ultimate control over everything while giving us the illusion of independence. Like globalisation which they equally created they want to bake the cake and eat it leaving mere crumbs for we plebs. Like a Russia they now respect only power so we better start getting some, offering State visits won’t gain any even superficial favour with the likes of those who follow a Trump most like.

    • Only a couple of hundred of those 700 have been delivered, and European command structures mean they couldn’t be operated as effectively as a single air force / command structure could. All those small countries with air policing of their small airspace zones, rather than a synchronized system.

      China has 300+ J20 5th gen fighters, is producing around 100 per year; and is starting to ramp up production of its second 5th gen aircraft, the J35. It also has 700 SU30 equivalents and a few hundred other combat jets. And it’s trajectory is far different to Europe.

    • Jim It says “will buy up to 700”, if you sit down and total the existing orders up, non US NATO inc Canada already have 634 F35 in service or on order. Several of those are going to be ordering more (UK for starters). Germany has only bought 35 and some countries are yet to buy any (usual suspect Spain).
      So 700 no problem.
      GBAD on the other hand, just where do you start 🤷🏼‍♂️

      • Perun on YouTube raises some interesting thoughts on a spiderweb style attack on UK airbases…

        It wouldn’t be pretty and we grant visas to lots of foreign truck drivers…

        Do RAFP and RAF Regt conduct continuous perimeter patrolling? We’d be stuffed.

        Phalanx and Dragonfire based on all our and US bases? Pretty penny for that as well as the 360° perimeter radar coverage.

  12. I see the “10 times more lethal” has made its way to the continent finally.

    “We need a 400% increase in air and missile defence”

    As usual, a lot of very strong words being thrown about.

  13. OK in reference to the actual article regarding Air Defence by George, does anyone know what’s happening about Project Lewis ? I know it got delayed but it was supposed to be in by 2029.
    After all Mr Putin did just take a dig at Europe as unlike Russia and the US we don’t have any BM Early Warning systems ? Which is odd but what’s that big triangular thingy south of Whitby 🤷🏼‍♂️

    • I suspect project Lewis never really existed and will just be dropped at some point as it already appears to be.

      It may have dawned on someone at the MOD that there is not much point in buying another super sexy American BMD radar if you can’t shoot down any missiles.

      At no point did project Lewis ever seem to have any plan for effectors beyond maybe providing better queuing data for SM 3 which we don’t have and had no plan to buy.

      I suspect European Sky Shield replaced it and now it’s once again back at the drawing board to be replaced by ABM barges of what ever amazing new idea the MoD has this week.

  15. What we need to invest in is a low tech extremely high speed delivery system for a new tactical nuclear weapon. A new Vulcan bomber or revised TSR2. We keep buying off the Americans when we should be investing in our own tech and homegrown businesses. the Russians are still Bombers from the 50’s so i’m sure we could come up with something relatively cheap and not too over complicated.

    • The Russian bombers are just launch platforms for very long range cruise missiles, they could just as easily use Il-76.

      We don’t need old bombers back or even new bombers, we need as a minimum supersonic long range low profile nuclear capable cruise missiles.

      • Bombers would be better as the line up a Fairford these days is getting worse, besides they would still have a conventional role to play. Be nice to see something big and loud take to the skies of Britain once again. Thats me being all nostalgic I suppose.

  16. Although comments like these will undoubtedly boost my shares in defense companies, I do have some reservations about their impact on our negotiating position with LM.

    I’m sure LM’s senior management is equally thrilled by Mr. Rutte’s remarks.

    “Don’t call me Sir, I work for a living!”

  17. 700 F-35. Yes by all means. After LM integrate our weapons on the one’s we have already procured..! Otherwise what’s the point?

    Another 7 to 10 years for Meteor and SPEAR 3 to be integrated onto F-35B is not good enough, nor is threatening to close the F-35B production line (yes I know they go down the same line as the other variants, before anyone nit picks!) and suggesting we spend billions more on our carriers converting them with EMALS – talk about taking the p**s! A few years ago there was an article on the production crunch heading LM’s way because allies kept buying the F-35. The suggestion was that an additional production line was required but it would be expensive and difficult to get all of the suppliers to invest more in the program. My guess is that the pressure being applied to F-35B customers to switch to A or C variants is to save money, which means that at least 3 US allies are at risk of having their carrier strike capabilities scuppered by the US. Whether or not that is the case, the current situation with regards to the B variant is emblematic of the challenges or risks involved in buying US kit, great though it is, it comes with political chains.

    Don’t get me wrong, F-35 is a fantastic aeroplane and I like what its potential for the RN but it seems it is coming with considerable political / industrial baggage.

    I hope to see the Tempest program gets a significant uplift in the coming weeks and months as we need to break this dependence on the US MIC as it is determined to blackmail us into buying ever more kit from them effectively robbing us of our independence. Any uplift would need to be matched by demonstrable progress. Tempest cannot afford to slip. In the meantime we should order more Typhoons for the RAF as we know we can get some very effective weapons loaded on to it. 24 to 36 Tranche 4 Typhoons with ECRS 2 radars added to the upgraded T2 & T3 would keep the Warton lines open for Tempest and provide a powerful up lift in capability that we know damn well works!

    As for Carrier Strike we are stuck with F-35B for the time being and need to keep whatever little pressure we can exert well and truly applied to LM. In the meantime we need to push the loyal wingman concept, ensure that its is UK built or that at least we have significant control over its development. Load the drone up with our weapons so that even if the F-35B we have cannot launch the weapons itself then drones can. In effective by passing the F-35B delay machine and in so doing demonstrating our independence. The loyal wingman will take time to develop, but getting our weapons integrated F-35B appears to be on the never never curve…

    If we can get a drone flying with our weapons on it and control it from the F-35B, bite the bullet order another 36 or so to keep the fleet viable for the next 20 to 30 years and move on.

    Cheers CR

  18. The UK has a ÂŁ2.8 trillion national debt. Rachel is raising it by over ÂŁ100 billion a year. This is before she starts raising UK defence from 2.3% to 2.5%. The bond markets are signaling that they don’t want more government debt, regardless of whether it is UK, US, Japan, China, Europe or wherever. Any talk of raising UK defence spending above 2.9% GDP is unaffordable fantasy.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

By submitting this comment, you agree to the storage and handling of your data by this website in accordance with our Privacy Policy.