The Ministry of Defence has abandoned plans to purchase additional A400M transport aircraft due to cost.

Earlier this year, the Ministry of Defence published its tenth annual summary of the defence equipment plan, the report contained references to the purchase of more A400M transport aircraft.

Part of the document stated:

“In later years of the plan, planned equipment investments worth £2.3 billion, including a second tranche of F35 and further A400M aircraft, have not yet been delegated to TLBs and doing so will be dependent on the affordability of the programme as a whole.”

However, in a report from the National Audit Office examining the announced equipment plan, it’s stated that this plan has now been dropped.

“An option to purchase additional A400M aircraft was assessed as
unaffordable. Air Command is developing an affordable choice to
improve A400M availability. Some funding is held centrally.”

It’s worth remembering that the Royal Air Force will lose its entire fleet of C-130 Hercules aircraft by 2023. The Defence Command Paper released last year, titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age‘, states:

“The Royal Air Force will retire the BAe146 as planned by 2022 and take the C130 Hercules out of service by 2023. The A400M Atlas force will increase its capacity and capability, operating alongside C 17 Globemaster and Voyager transport aircraft and tankers.”

The C-130J variants first entered service with the Royal Air Force in the late 1990s and some of the C-130s have been retired in recent years but the remaining 14 had originally been due to keep flying until the mid-2030s. It is understood that, where possible, their missions will be picked up by the fleet of larger A400M Atlas transport aircraft.

What does Atlas do?

According to the Royal Air Force website, Atlas has the ability to carry a 37-tonne payload over 2,000nm to established and remote civilian and military airfields, and short unprepared or semi-prepared strips. Capable of operating at altitudes up to 40,000ft, Atlas also offers impressive low-level capability.

“It will accommodate as many as 116 fully-equipped troops; vehicles; helicopters, including a Chinook; mixed loads, including nine aircraft pallets and 54 passengers, or combinations of vehicles, pallets and personnel, up to a payload of 37 tonnes.”

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

325 COMMENTS

        • If one reads the NAO report, there are multiple budget pressures. Type 32 and MRSS were stopped due to rising costs and now will have to be re-thought. C-130 is being sold because of budget pressures. Tranche 1 Typhoon retirement has been brought forward due to budget pressures. F-35 is being capped at likely 70-80 aircraft due to budget pressures. Since the defence budget is not going up, that means there is no money for more Atlas, or more F-35B. There may now be insufficient funding for Type 32 as originally envisaged.

          Yes, they are making decisions on where to spend money and “cash manage” as best they can (for instance to buy NSM). But that only leads to new problems elsewhere. One can only rob Peter to pay Paul so many times.

          • The problem with type 26 stopping is they were intended to operate USV and undertake mine clearance duties. If type 26 is scrapped what platform will RN use for mine clearnace? The hunt and sandown classes are forecast to be scrapped and all gone by 2030. Dutch Mine Hunter design?
            Shit on it we are heading for massive defence cuts…..again.

          • Type 26 won’t be cut. Ship’s armament could be scaled back though. Type 32 – if it survives – may just end up being an MCM command ship (to replace the Hunt-class which will go by the early 2030s) and there numbers could be cut to fewer than 5. Hard to say.

            The decision that should be made is a strategic one. What are the most urgent UK national priorities? Defence should be one of them and, in the current fiscal climate of massive deficits, some things need to go to ensure that the first national priorities are, finally, adequately funded. International aid could probably be cut by 75% but one would have to weather the sh-t storm that would follow. Climate change spending could be brought back to some measure of sanity, but again one would have to weather the resulting sh-t storm. No UK Govt seems willing to do that and I don’t think Mrs. Thatcher is coming back unfortunately.

          • I doubt Mrs Thatcher would cut climate spending. She had a science background and was instrumental in getting the world to take action to stop damage to the ozone layer due to CFCs.
            If anything, she’d be committing more resources to;
            • reducing carbon-dioxide emissions
            • giving the U.K. more resilience to the climate-change and the impact it will have on us.

          • I think she would – her chemistry degree didnt stop her destroying our nuclear energy program\infrastructure did it.
            World class in the 80’s – look where we are now.
            Poor PM that got lucky with a couple of things.

          • The cuts to nuclear were due to its unpopularity post Chernobyl, and the dash to gas providing the cheapest source of electricity generation at the time.
            As for her general record… the U.K. in the 70’s was a joke, a country crippled by politically motivated strike action. Not all her changes were the right wrong, but she turned the U.K. around.

          • Agree with you. The UK was in a serious downward decline during the 70’s. She certainly played a large part in helping to turn things around for the better.

          • Agree, I’m in no way a lover of Mrs T being a social democratic type, but the nation was a shit show in the 70s and someone was needed.

          • What an ignorant comment, it was Labour that permitted the sale of British Energy to EDF after their 1997 win!

          • I don’t believe anybody is stopping climate change, least of all the UK. The UK has 1% of global GHG emissions, even were the UK to eliminate all GHG emissions tomorrow, it would make absolutely no difference. Dropping GHG emissions will be dependent on what countries like China, India and Russia do. What the UK and other developed nations should do is to set a good example on environmental protection and other than that, stop grandstanding and pretending.

          • Agreed, our efforts at reduction of carbon emissions etc can be likened to us emptying a swimming pool with a cup, while certain countries are filling it with a hosepipe at the deep end.

          • Morning Mate, how are tricks? Be thankful you don’t live in New Zealand, sweet Jesus there is no end to this carbon crap . The way they peddle this garbage narrative makes one think that NZ is going to lead the way in floating the climate change boats- give me strength.

            God willing, these Marxist wannabe incompetent academics will be out on their arses in our next general election in November 23.

          • Hi mate, all good here, been Xmas shopping for the kids, got them both 10 kilowatts of electric, only the best for my daughters 😂😂😂!

            Never been a good watch in regard to NZ and both defence and politics! Sad state of affairs mate, always pandering to certain groups and not enough reality! Alas we are drifting that way in every sector in the UK! Short term politics and popularity grabbing is always going to fail the people and the county! But as ever we will weather the storm, as will you, and we all get through the other side, a bit greyer, poorer and none the wiser, but able to say told you so!!!!!! Take care mate 👍

          • Airborne,
            May wish to appropriate your line re purchasing 💡 for Xmas–classic! 🤣😂😁 (Copyright acknowledgement, of course.)

          • Ahh- how I yearn for polystyrene fast food containers and plastic bags! the 80’s were a great time to be a baby boomer in the military. God I miss the Cold war!🙏

          • Hi Marius, its still it a great place to live in though. Summer is here and the sun is out this morning, I’m going to my local beach (a 6 minute stroll) and work on my tan.

            I’m a simple bloke at heart: craft beer+ BBQ(braai)+ sunshine = happy little Klonkie!

          • You’ve defeated your own argument.
            If the U.K. and other developed countries don’t eliminate green-house gas emissions what kind of example does that set to large emitter nations such as China and India?
            (And let’s be honest, while we may not be the greatest emitter now, we probably were during the industrial revolution, so we’ve already contributed a disproportionately large amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.)

            Nobody is stopping climate change, it’s happening. But by reducing emissions at least we won’t be making it even worse than it’s already going to be.

            As for the U.K. only contributing 1% currently… well if 10 nations all emitting 1% can stop their carbon emissions, then that’s 10%. That’s a significant step on the way.

          • You need to go to specsavers, I don’t even have a beard. How you can mistake me for him is unbelievable.

          • To be honest, I think a number of the initiatives are daft, however I do think that moving towards lower energy use / greener society is a good thing- although you’re right we’re a drop in the ocean of carbon emissions. Partly because it’s good to have the moral high ground in any debate.
            But mostly because lower energy consumption and greener methods of enrgy production give us greater security long term. If we’re using less energy, and the energy we produce is from domestic sources as much as possible (I’m considering nuclear base load, with a whole lot of wind power backed up by high capacity energy storage, with any major peaks covered by small amounts of gas), then we as a country are way less reliant on a declining resource that everyone else around the world is chasing- and that will only get more expensive and more volatile in supply.
            Some of it surely is pandering, don’t get me wrong (I’m looking at you, domestic hydrogen…), but the big structural stuff, I think it serves us well in the long run.

          • It would be less of an issue under Thatcher.

            Thatcher started a massive nuclear power building program that others decided to stop.

            So we would have had about 40-50% nuclear baseload – given consumption has dropped so much since then.

            Which with, other renewables, and a bit of gas would do very nicely.

          • Couldn’t agree more SB. We should not discount the value of natural gass as a viable transition in the long journey to a “carbon less” environment.

          • The issue is we either use gas for the absolute peaks of demand or when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine or we beggar the UK economy.

            You can get gas use down to about 20% of what it was at peak but more than that is astronomically difficult and expensive.

            Getting rid of 80% of the carbon output sounds like genuine progress to me.

          • Mrs Thatcher was a cutter. In the spring of 1982 she was in the process selling HMS Invincible and negotiations was near complete.

            A we know Argentina invaded The Falklands on 02/04’1982..

            Mrs Thatcher was never afraid to cut anything .

            1982 Feb 24 We
            Archive (TNA)
            Prime Ministerial Private Office files
            Defence: No.10 record of telephone conversation (MT-Prime Minister Fraser of Australia) [sale of HMS Invincible to Australia] [declassified 2012]

            https://cb786b42ab2de72f5694-c7a3803ab0f7212d059698df03ade453.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/820224%202040%20MT-Fraser%20%28690-219%29.pdf

          • Yes she was a cutter…
            • she cut inflation
            • she cut unemployment
            • she cut nationalised industries by privatising them
            • she cut the power of the unions
            • etc

            All good.

          • Resorting to insulting your opponent is the universally recognised admission of having been defeated in a debate.

          • Ships armaments scaled back, christ she’s barely armed as it is. The best sub hunter in the word should have a damn sight more weapons than a cluster of CAMMs, a Merlin & a 5″ gun.

          • Thank the maker then that Thatcher is dead and buried. That despicable woman caused more damage to our society than any war.
            Even by Tory standards she was shockingly low.
            As for cutting defence spending well, I think it’s long overdue and, does not go far enough.
            Who are we trying to kid. Britain is a third rate nation with a fifth rate government. No amount of futile macho posturing is going to convince anyone that this is anything other than a pathetic has been of a country.
            Huge amounts of money spent on a bloated arms budget is money wasted. These resources could and should be put to far better use. Doubling the overseas aid and climate change budgets would be a good start and , will actually benefit people
            Slashing the military budget will release billions for socially necessary projects instead of useless big boys toys.
            I’m delighted no more money is being thrown away on these things. It does not go far enough but, its a start

          • Much of what you ask for is already wasted on so many projects rather than looking at the basics. NHS biggest employer in Europe yet you can wait 40+ hours to be seen at A&E. Not more money needed but smarter working with that already provided. Lots of good folks doing good work but lead by idiots for sure. Defence well all I can say in my service I and many others did a lot of good around the world. I do think we should have a couple of Medical Ships going out and about so the money is not filtered off into someone’s pocket as it does now. And who do you think provides the freedom for you and others to speak out? You would be removed in many states around the world so have some gratitude for those that give up their freedom so you can have yours. Its got to be paid for and tyrants kept from the door and the UK Armed Forces lead the way.

          • Only a fool cuts defence spending when an aggressive country is waging a war of annihilation on our very own doorstep.

          • If u can’t defend your self and protect your trade then ur current way of life can end at any point. Not much point having an nhs and aid budget if an aggressor has blocked trade to ur country.
            Given the chance Russia and China would take over the current world order in a heartbeat.
            Oh those opinions u posted won’t be allowed as free speech is banned.
            Also the defence budget is small in relation to everything else the government funds.

          • Allan you do realise you are on a defence forum, this isn’t stop oil or green peace. Maybe Greta Thunberg might be a better audience for your thoughts as the majority on here probably don’t share your views.

          • You sleep well in your bed Allan because hard men are willing to do bad things so you don’t have to. Your comments are ignorant in the extreme. You have been kept safe by the sword and shield of NATO to which we all contribute. Why don’t you tell us Allan to what extent can the Uk cut its armed forces and who would take up the slack?

          • I think that you will find that the RN are purchasing four ex oil rig support vessels to act as mine clearance motherships. They are to be crewed by RFA personal apparently, with the mine warfare people joining as and when required.

          • If that is indeed the case, would it be cost effective to simply retain and renovate some Hunt and/or Sandown class? 🤔

          • Two sides of the same coin but different budgets.
            Navy wins by not having to sustain half a crew or buy and run the vessels over their lifetime = big savings.
            Navy losses out on small ships for training purposes and in area presence.
            Will be interesting to see how the RFA manage given the manning issues they face.
            Personally think we should have both, but then again I don’t foot the bill!

          • Would these ships be able to supplement MROSS function, when not being utilized in mine clearance ops? 🤔

          • Yet they can blow

            1. £2.7bn on the channel immigrants,
            2. £780m extra on climate “reparations”.
            3. A further £11.6bn on global climate change subsidies (https://shrtm.nu/DOKr)
            4. Not mentioning, Ukraine.

            It’s not as if the tax burden is so low they are having issues with raising money. The defence costs have risen 23% this year alone. They haven’t put spending up to keep in line with inflation. Without spending more, it’s a massive cut in defence spending.

            They never announced defence spending in the budget, deliberately leaving it to fly under the public’s radar. We see that today as it’s not been mentioned in the news.

            It’s just another reason to see the Tories have ruined the areas they were traditionally strong on.

            Where’s the hammer, I need to smash the glass on the box that says “In case of emergency break glass for Thatcher”.

          • MOD aspirations and Treasury realism don’t synchronise and rarely do. In truth, the UK will not see any dramatic increases in equipment regardless of the war in Ukraine. The reasons are clear Putin intends to sit out the next ten years in or around Ukraine as it all helps to keep him in sharp focus with the rest of the World. If a modern war in Europe won’t shake the cage then nothing will apart from a direct threat of an invasion of the UK.

        • True. There’s plenty of fat that can be trimmed for all the liberal social programs that are out of control just like in America.

          • There has been massive spending cuts over the last 12 years because of austerity. Which was massively counterproductive and is contributing to our low productivity and recession now. Then of course there is Brexit, which has been disastrous. The quickest way to boost our wealth and productivity in trade would be to rejoin the Single Market.

            In the context of that I don’t know which “liberal social programmes” you would cut specifically, but I guarantee it wouldn’t make much difference to defence spending and would likely just affect the poor or vulnerable even more.

          • ‘There has been massive spending cuts over the last 12 years because of austerity’ Which areas of govt spending have seen massive spending cuts over the last 12 years ?

          • Brexit is not “The” single issue and rejoining the SM wont quickly fix anything in the near to medium term. Thats a simple trope rolled out for everything.
            To join the single market will come with unacceptable conditions for the UK electorate. The discussions and treaty requirements will take over a decade to settle at least. The loss of UK currency sovereignty would be put on the table on day one and be an instant stopper.
            Global recession caused by a number of external factors are the main drivers.
            Energy disruptions.
            Energy costs caused by Russia invading Ukraine
            Global shipping still recovering from the pandemic
            The high dollar v other currencies
            Manufacturing recovering from the pandemic.

          • Suggest you leave Brexit out of it. We left, so no EU for you, or Single Market dreams.
            On defence, nothing has changed during my adulthood: savings have been a way of life, whether that was under Harold Wilson or now, Rishi Sunak.
            On the A400M, I’m not so sure it’s any great loss if the fleet is not enlarged pro tem, other than the coincidence of Hercules going out of service.

        • Correct. It is an active decision to say that a whole raft of things outside of defence (including global posturing on this, that or the other thing) are more important than those things that may fall by the wayside when it comes to the defence of the realm.

          • Agreed. We started to rearm and enlarge force strengths for major conflict from late 1934, and was only just ready for warfighting (initially in a small way) by Sep 1939….and that was with relatively simple weapons and ammunition.
            Heaven help us now if we needed to rearm and expand for a major conflict in a matter of weeks or months.

  2. This is an untenable position. If we can’t fund new aircraft we need to find a way to maintain the C130 fleet.

  3. Logistics are key force enablers. The French gutted their logistical capabilities to prioritise front line navy and air force assets, we can’t make the same mistake in making our forces impotent at long distance. Hopefully this decision is rectified at next review.

    • Gutted? The “gutted” French have:
      20 A400M in service + 30 ordered,
      14 C130 in service + 4 ordered
      6 Transall in service
      27 Casa 235 in service
      8 A330 MRTT in service + 7 ordered
      Not to mention A200M in development

      The RAF should be so lucky with only 21 A400, 8 C17 and a contract for 12 voyager. Retiring the C130 was a mistake.

      • No heavy air lift either fixed wing or helicopter at all (e.g. C17 or Chinook), only three tiny and incredibly aged replenishment ships. You’re inflating their numbers by including tiny aircraft irrelevant to a mass airlift

        • Not inflating any numbers these are all transport/cargo aircraft that are dedicated to this role.
          How ironic that you talk about mass airlift at long distance and yet your counter argument is to include Chinook which has limited range and payload!
          And FYI there are 4 brand new Vulcano class replenishment ships coming (1 just launched earlier this year) as well as 3 Mistral in service.
          Your opinion does not change those facts and your obsession to ridicule others is quite revealing.
          People in glass houses ….

          • French cope.

            I clearly said heavy airlift, so you’ve shifted the goalposts. No one is going to be using a Transall with its tiny payload and range for a mass airlift

            The Chinook is capable of lifting large payloads, far in excess of any French helicopter, hence why they had to borrow ours in Mali.

            The Mistrals are outgoing as the Vulcanos come in. The Vulcanos are still tiny at 27k tonnes. This matches the (future) French replenishment fleet at just over 100k tonnes versus the RFA’s >330k tonnes, which is set to grow with FSSS.

          • FYI Vulcano replace Durance class. Mistral class is not being retired anytime soon!
            Yes UK need bigger tanker ships just to feed the airfraft carriers, CDG is nuclear powered so no need for ship fuel which is a considerable amount!
            You have 0 idea when it comes to French armed forces, just false pre-conceived ideas.

          • Oh of course, Mistral isn’t a logistics ship but an LPH so you’re talking out your behind. If you count those as logistic ships, we get to count the Albions.

            I see, of course! However, all the escorts need fuel, the aircraft need fuel, and both need ammunition, food and water. So that blows your argument out the water. France also has very few major overseas naval bases to supplement this function.

            France is logistically impotent, your ideas are pre-conceived and false.

          • The CDG spends years in dock for replenishment, sure HMS PoW had issues, but thats what numbers means, we could still the HMS QE. Nuclear means nothing if you don’t have the numbers to compensate for being in dry dock like the Americans.

          • Yes the UK helped with crucial transport mission, as did many other nations from Nato. FYI the US provided more than anyone for transport and intel. This was key to mobilize quickly since speed was of the essence and France did not have enough aircraft to do it in such urgency. I doubt the UK alone could have mobilized that many units in such a timeframe without any allied help. That is just the reality all european militaries face. Only the US can mobilize en masse without help, not China nor Russia.

            Operation Serval to stop IS advance and push them back was quite successfull (without any Chinooks). Not pointing any blame since France decided this unilaterally in a a matter of days, without time to fully consult with allies or UN. Remember that GAO was being overun and they were moving to Bamako the capital. Speed was essential. I suggest you read up about the ops; it is quite interesting to see what and how they deployed limited means.

            Operation Barkhane to stabilize Mali long term was not successful, as is often the case in these never ending counter insurgency ops like Afghan, Iraq, etc…. anyway after a few coups, the new regime kicked France out of Mali and so France left. Now Wagner backed regime in Mali is seeing a resurgence of islamist attacks.

            Anyway i am not optimistic about the future of sub-Saharan Africa with an islamist push southwards. Just look at Nigeria still struggling with Boko Haram.

      • Meanwhile, the Australian Department of Defence has announced it will replace the RAAF’s 12 Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules with an expanded fleet of 24 new-build C-130Js (effectively doubling the size of the Hercules fleet) for its Project AIR 7404 Phase 1 medium air mobility replacement requirement.
         
        The US Defence Security Co-operation Agency, which oversees foreign military sales (FMS) of American equipment, said the State Department had approved the sale of 24 C-130Js and related hardware at a cost of up to $10 billion.
         
        It has also been reported that a separate tranche of up to 6 KC-130J tankers may also be under consideration but no firm order for tanker variants has been placed.
         
        The future RAAF transport fleet is most likely to comprise 8 C17 Globemasters, 7 KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transports, 24 C130J Hercules and 10 C-27J Spartans (although there is some suggestion these may be retired despite only entering service in 2016).
         
        This is in addition to the RAAF VIP fleet of 2 Boeing 737 BBJs (about to be replaced with upgraded models), 3 Dassault 7Xs and 8 King Air 350s.

        • Not sure why you are replying to me? I did not mention anything about Australia.
          Anyway good to see that Australia is taking its defense seriously 👍 especially with an ever more assertive China which directly impacts Australia more than Europe.

          • I don’t know why they are replying to u. What you said is correct.
            France has not gutted its logistics as it has more large transport aircraft than its ever had. France operates differently to the uk and orders what it needs for those roles.
            As we are all in an alliance sharing our resources helps fill any gaps.

          • Just different priorities. Plenty of cash in UK and France to deal with these shortcomings, just look at the cost of Covid. All vaccinated multiple times over, lockdowns etc… and yet just about everyone got Covid at least once.

          • If only the nhs could be made more effecient and uk population weened off its addiction to benefits (in and out of work that can help people already earning 70k) / nice to have state funded schemes.

            That would release much needed funds for defense. However politicians know that they would soon be voted out if they took the truly needed decisions

          • Sorry I don’t think u know uk benefits of u think people on 70k are getting handouts. If you earn more than £500 a month you get nothing. That’s universal credit.
            If u want to take pensions and pensioners benefits good luck.
            Any Parents with children earning the 1 average uk wage £33k will also get zero help.

          • I believe it’s effectively capped if one parent earns £60, if over £50k it is still payable albeit at a reduced level by virtue of a charge. If both parents earn £59k they will still receive the benefit. I’ve probably got some of the detail wrong here but it certainly looks like handouts to people who don’t need it to me.

          • Its hard to believe, but it is actually true. Run some figures through a checker.

            70k year salary, 2k month rent, single parent 3 kids, limited / hidden savings would see total benefit of about 230 a week

          • That’s quite a rare circumstance that a single parent earns £70k with 3 kids under 18. It’s the rent price of 2k that would tip the scale. That £230 is less than half the monthly rent.
            The lack of social housing is a major problem.
            On the whole benefits are not generous. Single person gets £270 a month. That won’t even cover energy costs now. So even with food banks that still leaves no money for anything else and the lights off for a week and no heating, hot water, toiletries etc.

          • If you get rid of in work benefits you’d find that private sector companies would suddenly have to pay a good deal more. I don’t disagree with the principle of not providing benefits to top up private sector profits, but there would be knock on effects. Housing subsidies are the worst. Billions a year straight to private landlords because Thatcher sold off all the council housing and didn’t build anymore.

          • That’s trickle down economics 🙈 sorry I’ll get my coat for worst comment of the week😂😂😂

          • You do realise vaccines don’t stop you from catching a virus, that’s not how they work 🤦🏻‍♂️
            I haven’t had Corvid, nor have many of my friends 🤷🏻‍♂️

          • That is actually exactly how they work. Or at least how they worked until they had to cover for the dangerous and ineffective crime against humanity we were all subjected to so nobody ends up swinging from lamp posts.

          • Vaccines have NEVER prevented anyone from catching anything. What they do is to familiarise the immune system to a virus so that it is recognised as being harmful as soon as possible after infection and attacked, preventing the virus from hijacking the body’s cells to multiply and spread.
            But you anti-vax types are too busy constructing your ridiculous conspiracy theories to bother to educate yourself with basic scientific facts.
            The only people who should be swinging from lampposts are the anti-vaxxers who are responsible for unnecessary deaths by putting people off getting getting vaccinated.

          • Inarticulate as well as stupid, I see you’re a typical anti-vaxxer.

            Vaccines train the immune system to attack and destroy a virus upon infection. A virus cannot reproduce by itself, it’s not alive, it needs to hijack a hosts cells and reprogram them to make copies of itself. So the faster a virus is attacked and destroyed, the less opportunity it had to reproduce and thus less chance it had to infect other people.
            Which is how all vaccines reduce transmission, by limiting how much virus the body produces. Depending upon the R0 and how many people become immune by vaccination or previous infection then it’s possible for the virus to be wiped out due it not being able to reproduce.

            Unfortunately we won’t eradicate Corvid-19 because there’s too many deranged anti-vaxxers who refuse to be vaccinated.

          • I have had 2 jabs plus 2 boosters. I and all my family have not had Covid once yet.
            Mind you, we are sensible and take precautions where necessary unlike others.

          • Just check out how the RAF and RAAF compare now and into the near future, sorry but the RAAF are showing the RAF up on all sides. Considering they have less than half the population although a far greater land/sea area to cover. Do well on a small budget and seldom waste cash like the UK MOD. At least their uniforms are not made in China!!!!!!!!!

          • Well they wasted cash buying the Eurocopter Tigers instead of buying Apaches like the U.K. did…

            And then they wasted years and money on that French Shortfin Barracuda submarine project before scrapping the programme for a AUKUS based nuclear solution.

            EVERY country has disastrous defence projects, but you hear about your own country’s far more than foreign nations.

          • Hi Sean, and the NH 90 helicopter debacle as well, to be replaced in the near future with a further Blackhawk order to replace them early

          • The UK’s Apaches cost far more than the ones the UK got as we wanted Anglicised just like we did with the Phantom and didn’t work for some time after getting them now we go and purchase off the shelf of a proven system. True the Auzzies have made errors but they are double the AEW/C assets we will have and a far larger ASW fleet in the end. We wasted a fortune (twice) on Nimrod projects even after all had been purchased and build then scrapped as the goal posts kept being moved but no more money was added. Updated the Jaguar fleet then scrapped them too as we did with the Harriers and don’t get me on about the SHAR which was the best figher in NATO even when the fleet was disposed of.

          • I believe the U.K.s Apaches performed better in Afghanistan than the US’s due to the anglicisation of fitting RR engines. So sometimes these things work out for the best, sometimes they don’t (eg the SF Chinook anglicisation).

            Every country screws up defence projects. German frigates, Spanish submarines, American destroyers, all been hilarious goofs in recent years.

            Pretty sure as a fighter both Typhoon and F16 would have outclassed the SHAR when it was retired. It was an amazing aircraft in its day though, and without it there would be no F35B.

          • That’s a bold statement the sea harrier was the best fighter in nato. It had good missiles amraam but not very many. It had great pilots and a decent radar when fitted. But it’s subsonic so can’t chase, its small range,
            When it was retired there was typhoon, updated F15, super hornet, rafale, gripen. It could hold it own but a lot of that was down to the pilot.

          • Folks often forget how expensive it is to have a nuclear deterrent based on submarines and nuclear powered submarines. That takes a good chunk of uk spending.

          • This highlighted on a banner with flashing lights and bells on.
            It is undermining what is otherwise a well resourced defence budget. And pensions too.

          • Australia gets the money from er China!
            Selling them coal and mining minerals!
            This enables the Australian to buy more equipment to defend itself from er China!

          • The Australians have been running a budget surplus for a couple of years, and are predicted to do so for the foreseeable future. Mainly due to income from commodity exports, particularly coal.

        •  10 C-27J Spartans (although there is some suggestion these may be retired despite only entering service in 2016).

          RAAF just asked Leonardo to upgrade the C27J avionics.

          This is finally RAAF recognizing it can’t go it alone. Until now C-27J which have been bough from US stocks have been managed without Leonardo which brought some combat capabilities issues that could not have been updated without manufacturer OK.

          • To the best of my knowledge Australian C-27J has absolutely nothing to do with US. I understand these were new build aircraft. Australia has pulled the C-27J from front line service to secondary HADR service. This I believe is due to the RAAF considering the C-27J to not being viable in a ‘hot’ environment. In somewhere like the Pacific Islands or even Australia itself, this does not mean the aircraft can’t be useful. HADR at range is a standard capability requirement of government. Installing standard upgrades is no different to servicing your car. If Australia is planning to sell them off in the next couple of years, it’s a waste of money. If they are planning to keep them for 20+ more years, then you would have to be asking why not.

        • fairly sure the additional 12 c13oj will replace the c27 Spartan in the coming years, which will retire early (which I wish I could do!). Bear in mind the also have 6 Wedgetail AWACA and 14 P8 Poseidon’s on order.

          • C27J can go to places that C-130 can’t. They have been very useful to support many communities in Australia and in neighbours.
            A C27J is now supporting F35’s deployment to an exercise in Malaysia. With a C-130 would have been much more expensive.

      • C130 is a good plane ,a big mistake to retire them, whoever is in charge of budgeting and arming our armed forces is a joke,he is trying to impress and copy the us, which we can’t as we haven’t the money or manpower to go the same way as the us.rule number one in a war is play to your strengths.we are a island ,so air defence,mine sweepers , frigate (well armed and multi-purpose,c130 for special forces,the jets we use are okay but need more ,and more anti subs helicopter,Merlin and Apaches for attack and a few a400 for transporting equipment.need more tanks ,if boxers and drones we can use from the carriers sea guardian and protector drones.then build from that when we get more money, stopping the migration would save a lot of money to spend on deffence.

      • And yet when operations kick off, its RAF aircraft we see at the frontline, and these impressive numbers of French aircraft are not to be seen.

        • Stop inventing stuff like the UK was spearheading everything and did the bulk of the lifting. That is just flat out wrong. The UK was just one of many nations that helped France during Serval.
          The UK provided 2 C17 during Serval so did other countries like US (5) Sweden (1) Canada (2) and UAE (2) as well as C130 from Belgium (2) Spain (1) Denmark (1) Netherlands (4) and Transall from Germany (3)
          France had not even received its first A400M at the time, since Airbus decided to prioritize export customers over France and Germany. Since 2013 things have improved greatly with 20 A400M in service and a further 30 to be delivered, so this ridiculous claim by Levi that France has gutted its logistic capability is completely false!
          Seriously get over yourself, how many maritime patrol aircraft did France have to send out on patrols for the UK over the last decade?
          Allies help, that is what they do, instead of ignorant xenophobes who delude themselves thinking their god’s gift to man.

  5. No real surprise is it. We’ve covered the cut of Hercules so many times here and no one as yet explained to me how Atlas covers Hercs roles while carrying out its own given the demand for both.

    I don’t care how far it can fly or how much it carries it cannot be in two places at once and the AMF is in demand and is losing around a quarter of its force.

    However, as I mentioned on the other thread there will be uplifts in other areas I am reading about such as MLRS, so always some positives.

    • “Air Command is developing an affordable choice to
      improve A400M availability. Some funding is held centrally.”

      This could be read as if though they are looking at cheaper alternatives, perhaps to fill roles where an A400M is overkill. Perhaps I’m being too optimistic!

      A small flight of C295 maybe?

      • Introducing and maintaining a new type to service would cost more than purchasing additional aircraft of an existing type.

        • Perhaps, but depends on the aircraft and how many we buy. If it’s just 3 or 4 c295 for SF duties then will that be cheaper than buying more A400? Don’t know.

          • Why buy them though, it’s smaller than an A400M and the C130 already does the exact same role, we also already have them and have kept them in good condition.

            Most other countries are picking up the C-130J’s for the role you are suggesting whilst we remove it entirely.

      • If we just went back to the original plan of the RAF getting 25 A400M, those extra 3 would cost roughly $450m. There is a near new Dassault Falcon 8X for sale at $50m. So for $500m you could provide bare minimum RAF transport capability. The Envoy 900LX pilots & maintainers, should not be too stretched by another Dassault trijet.

      • Big believer that if the herc is to go then it has to go, but need to keep a minimum of 3 SF with 47 Sqn, as I’ve said a number of times, for those more “expendable”, sorry risky taskings. The Atlas, with its limited numbers and size, with other tasking requirements will be a little gold plated.

        • Yes I think the special forces will still get an aircraft or 3 to keep for there stuff. So it’s less for the other stuff. In current operational requirements the raf can get by. If the poop hits the fan then they will be in a pickle for rapid deployments.

      • Haha ur optimism is fantastic.
        I take it to mean there’s no money for more aircraft so u better work out how to run the aircraft to cover the additional roles coming to the fleet. Oh and make sure it doesn’t cost anymore.

    • Hi DM, I wonder if the Germans would be open to selling off some used A400’s at mates rates ?Still the RAF would face the opex costs , so probably a non starter given the way things economic are unfolding. Likely there is more disappointment to come , just in time for Xmas.

  9. A warm and sunny retirement home perhaps?

    Greece interested in surplus UK Hercules airlifters
    01 DECEMBER 2022

    “Greece has shown interest in acquiring from the United Kingdom an undisclosed number of soon-to-be-retired Lockheed Martin C-130J/C-130J-30 Hercules air lifters.

    The Greek Republic Ministry of National Defense (MND) announced in late November that it had held a teleconference with Marshall Aerospace and Defence Group to talk about the upcoming sale of one ‘short’ C-130J (C5 in UK service) and 13 ‘stretched’ C-130J-30 (C4) airframes that are to be retired from Royal Air Force (RAF) service in 2023.”

    https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/greece-interested-in-surplus-uk-hercules-airlifters

  10. Sadly I fear this is just the tip of the iceberg, we’ll lose C103s, no additional A400, then it’ll be F35 delays. no T32’s and yet more delays for Army replacements of everything from trucks to artillery.

  11. As I have said many times on these forums cuts in real terms are coming. The additional A400s were not budgeted for. Additional pressures Mount for expenditure on protecting the UKs communications and energy infrastructure which is seen as an immediate threat and needs to be countered.

    Another integrated review, uk foreign policy, what the government expects and what the budget can provide. In other words a fudge.

    • It is w/in the realm of credibility that the results of the updated integrated review will be utilized as leverage to extract additional funds from Exchequer. Probably not a serious gambit to request an increased share of GDP when other areas constrained, but it would be rational to have a line item review w/ projected benefits and costs of unfunded priorities. Wallace and Hunt are certainly not neophytes at bureaucratic knife fighting; Sunak is less experienced, but appears to be reasonably intelligent and may prove supportive. 🤔

      • Almost always the case. The defence select Committee has almost always been ignored by government. Funding for additional A400s was never earmarked was talk of three additional airframes, it seems the serviceability of the current airframes have improved, its now a case of priorities first. 1 protection of the communication and energy sub lines, 2 re equipping the army £24 billion set aside. And the Navy’s ability to protect our underwater infrastructure.
        Interesting to note that the Foreign affairs committee is in Taiwan at the moment reaffirming the UKs commitment to the Indo-china and Asia Pacific area.

        • While it is refreshing to realize US has a few allies who have our six, It does become a tad worrisome when politicians insist on writing policy checks, whilst simultaneously denying the military the funds to be able to back such check writing campaigns. In the US this is colloquially known as a check kiting scheme, is prosecutable under fraud statutes, and perpetrators can do semi-serious time. Just a random musing, in case anyone may wish to bring a novel lawsuit…🤔😳😉

  13. Well I guess we will do in future what we did in the past, commercial airlift to do what needs doing, all NATO air forces do it. The RAF in the modern age just could never meet what’s needed. All the Heavy stuff still goes by sea as it will do into the foreseeable future regardless.

  14. In that case we need to keep the C130s! As we have seen and reminded in Ukraine, logistics and resupply is as important as enough frontline resources.

    • Agreed especially since there is quite a bit of life left in these airframes, especially the C130 which has proven to be a very resilient aircraft over the years.

      • Really? Have you seen what Brexit has done to the £ and to our productivity?

        Worse is to come. Makes me sad to see so many ex-military folk pointing their guns in the wrong direction.

        • So it’s nothing to do with a global recession, COVID and a war in Europe? No thought not, as BREXIT will be an excuse for every thing that goes down the toilet for a generation of remainers who don’t seem to like a democratic choice, and want to change it! In fact, many remainers seem to have more in common with Pooptin over in Nazi Russia than they realise! Come on mate, get over it, ride it and move forward!

          • That’d be a great excuse if it wasn’t for everyone else raising their defence spending whilst we cut ours – Germany are in Europe as well and face more severe energy issues than us due to their reliance on Russia, yet they’ve purchased F35’s, C-130J’s and Chinooks in the second half of this year alone – we’ve interestingly cut our orders in all those areas.

            This is just more poor leadership from the Conservatives when it comes to defence whilst people like you try and desperately defend a party which has consistently value self-preservation and their own personnel benefits over national security.

            The RAF will be losing a quarter of our air transport fleet whilst the allies we’ve spend the past few decades surpass us in capability, yet people like you who seemingly can’t help but praise or defence industry or policy fail to criticise it in any meaningful way.

          • I think proximity to the Russian bear has alot to do with our continental cousins ramping up defence expenditure.

          • Oh dear, silly comment as you lost any credibility when you claim “people like me try and desperately defend a party blah” wow presumption seems to be rife with you! You know nothing about me and I actually don’t support this crock of Tory shite! So, anything relevant to say now? No? Oh as for Germany do have another look? And as for your subject matter knowledge, one example where have we cut our Chinook order? Still 14 at the moment? Come on Ben make more of an effort to debate! Oh and we actually haven’t cut defence spending, like all countries we have raised it but inflation is eating into it! Sigh! Please research the subject matter before pontificating, cheers.

          • You can desperately try to shift the point all you want – I’m not really concerned about what you consider to be credible, because based on your other posts in this thread you’re making a lot of stuff up and just hoping people won’t call you out on it – your credibility doesn’t exist, so why do I care on your characterisation of mine?

            We haven’t cut our Chinook orders, you are correct – we have however already delayed them by 3 years due to costs, and if this decision about the A400M is anything to go by, there is absolutely a chance they are completely cut. I’ll note you didn’t ask for examples on the others, is that perhaps because we have undoubtedly cut the original F35 purchase order and withdrawn the plan to purchase extra A400Ms?

            We have raised spending, but if it doesn’t match inflation it’s a real time cut, the fact that everyone else is getting hit by inflation but isn’t cutting orders should be an easy example of that – yet you’d rather purposely simplify the matter to make my point seem wrong.

            If inflation was as big as an issue then more countries would be cutting the spending they have on military items, they aren’t – therefore inflation rises are outpacing our defence budget meaning we spend LESS. Now you can whine about my credibility all you want, you’ll probably even deny this – but it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

            The rest of your comment is irrelevant, because when you have to purposely simplify the point to make yourself seem right, you’ve already lost – if spending doesn’t match inflation, it results in a lower budget and therefore results in the military having less capability.

          • Your post is a rather large excuse, and I didn’t ask for other examples as your post was so full of errors and presumption that it became irrelevant! A good example is your statement that we are reducing defence budgets, yet when taken to task about inflation on the said budgets, and proven incorrect, you use my reasoning and response to try to change yours, to use mine! Good good man that’s first year uni chuff! So, Please make more effort, learn the subject matter in hand, practice your interaction and come up with more than random guff to justify your position, otherwise you look a little silly. Thanks.

          • And I’m intrigued to what I’m making up, please cut and paste said posts, to this thread, for others and myself to see, to discuss! I await them eagerly for a grown up chat about my “made up stuff”!

    • Thanks to the Tory party running the country for the last decade as if it was their country club. For Adam Smith capitalism to be effective people must act with enlightened self interest, not as sheep following what they read in the popular largely tory press, a uniquely high proportion of which is foreign owned…funny that.

      • No difference with the fascist left, just different justification for a different fan base! Tories, Labour, cheeks of the same arse!

        • That’s true, or at least has been. IMO one of the things we have to do as a nation is to come to terms with our history and ‘move on’. We have a culture and a political system which encourages polarisation rather rather than consensus. This means we progress by slewing wildly from side to side wasting our energy. A second reason we waste energy is that we have a national culture which glorifies righteous indignation.
          We are being had. Time to wake up.
          “It is only necessary to raise a bugbear before the English imagination in order to govern it at will. Whatever they hate or fear, they implicitly believe in, merely from the scope it gives to these passions.”
          William Hazlett

      • Total circulation of newspapers in U.K. is under 4 million, in a population of 67 million.

        The influence of the press is highly overrated.

        • Mmm. Can’t agree with you there. I’m pretty much with Goebbels if you know what I mean; if you say something often enough people will believe it. And ‘the press’ includes TV and digital channels these days. Owners fight for their control because they have a world view and want to mould the world in their image. For example the Graudian would like to see a society which is not founded on faith and the nuclear family so they actively promotes alternative lifestyle choices, while the DT carries a front page article undermining the NHS on a daily basis. Their objective is to bring it down by undermining confidence in the principle of mutualised health care; so that US health care providers can expand into the UK.
          I know the 2021 census says faith is not fashionable but belief drives events. Who dares wins. Say that we are overrun by immigration often enough and we need to ‘take control’ and hey presto, post Brexit we are overrun – ironically because we ditched the agreements we had with the EU that obliged them to keep immigrants off our shores.
          Brexit is not good or bad in and of itself; like most things in life its how you to react to it. The conservative government either failed to think through the consequences of Brexit and set expectations or, more likely they knew perfectly well that if would be a lot tougher than Johnson’s ‘oven ready’ deal. Either way they are culpable. Without Ukraine and Covid we might have ridden it out but now we will never know.
          Still, there are Brexit positives….a united Ireland is looking closer 🙂

          • Oh people are swayed, particularly the feeble brained. You only have to look at the likes of Info Wars or any of the anti-vaccines propaganda sites to see they have impact on a fringe.
            In general those, the vast majority of people are centrist and pragmatic rather than ideological. That’s why they can swing between parties at election time, and its why they don’t have any faith in extremist ideologues like Corbyn or Truss.

            Brexit hasn’t had a chance to really happen yet. It’s happened but very little has actually been done to take advantage of it because Corvid and Ukraine have dominated politics for the last 3 years. It takes years for major policy shifts to take place and have full impact.

            As for a ‘United Ireland’, the truth is that Eire doesn’t want it. They saw how much trouble the U.K. had with Republican terrorism during the Troubles. That would be a cakewalk compared to what Loyalist terrorists would do. I can’t see the Irish Army being able to make the same kind of commitment that the British Army did in the six counties.

          • Agreed mate, no matter what the Dublin political crowd spew for public consumption, they can not control, afford or assimilate NI!

          • Well if we do get an assembly that is up and running SF are between a rock and a hard place! If they do a good job of running the country (?) and we prosper WHY on earth would we vote to join the South? A case in point going down to XMG there is a sign that says South Armagh (bandit country) supports the NHS and yet these are the people who supposedly supports going South and scrapping it for £50 to see a doctor £100 to go to A&E and the costs go on!
            Sorry for the rant🙄

          • Not a rant mate, quite reasonable points and thought process. When it comes to a rant, I can rant!!!!!

          • Nah, missed out on an Irish passport by one generation. Apparently my great, great grandmother came over during the famine…must be in the genes. Republicanism comes in different flavours. The French variety which inspired Irish is bad news. The US, despite its current difficulties is the best.
            The UK is probably best advised to tune what we have; more devolution to the regions, more democratic accountability and less patronage ( cronyism).
            “Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.” ~ Alexis de Tocqueville

          • I just want devolution to England not to the English regions.

            UK should have a great deal of democratic accountability – it is ranked much higher than the US in the Global Democracy Index (US rated as a flawed democracy).

            Republicanism will not come to the UK again – the 1649-1660 experiment was a disaster.

          • I see reason (according to the Economist Jan 2017) the US was demoted to a flawed democracy was a poll result that people had less trust in their democracy. I would say that’s not really a criticism of the system but rather of the inability or unwillingness of the electorate to elect representatives with integrity. We seem to have developed the habit pf electing political leaders based on personality and ego rather than character. The US has only itself to blame.
            The wounds of our civil war are still healing. Hopefully king Charles III will be third time lucky 🙂

          • The problem with the US system is it’s basically an elected king (they replaced an unelected King with an elected one), with the type of powers kings often had at the time. They are now stuck with a written constitution that is centuries out of date. Every other nation from that time with a detailed written constitution has thrown it out & started again.

          • Yes, that’s a good analogy. And the problem with the UK system, as Boris Johnson illustrated, is that the divine right of kings and did not really end; it passed in large measure to the leader of the party who wins the general election. Our system of patronage is pretty much intact and has become a crippling nepotism.
            The US system has functioned well because of the health of Christianity in that country has compensated for weaknesses in the system.
            “Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” ~ Alexis de Tocqueville.
            I can’t find the reference but a cardinal when asked his opinion on Donald Trump was reported to say ‘ He’s a barbarian, but he’s our barbarian’. 🙂

          • Most ‘youngsters’ get their news online from TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, etc, and not from The Mail Online.

    • Thanks Margaret, thanks, major, thanks tony, thanks Gordon, thanks David, thanks Teresa, thanks boris, thanks liz, thanks Rishi.
      Did i miss anyone?

  16. I do not want to capture the thread, but crippling the economy with Brexit sooner or later also has implications on military ambitions. I know people do not want to hear this, especially not from a German (and yes, Germany proves you can have a bad defence when being inside the EU), but still.

  17. …….or we could have just raised corporation taxes further, windfall tax and higher rate of tax becoming 50%…..there’s always ways to raise more cash to fund national priorities but as usual the Tories don’t expect their wealthy members to carry the burden..

    • Business has interests over defence. But perhaps I’m glad the Arms Industry doesn’t have such a hold on Politics like they do across the pond.

    • A better solution would be to tax profits in the country where a transaction is done rather than where the country is headquartered. Would mean all those companies headquartered in Ireland or Luxembourg; such as Amazon, making a more proportionate contribution to the UKs tax revenue.

      • Absolutely not, but the drop in corporate tax is the real driver. I seem to recall it used to be 33% – no wonder the increase in deficit.
        Maggie Thatcher imposed a supertax on bank windfall profits in the 80/s- perhaps time to revisit?

    • Poor England is now a cultural socialist state as seen from comments here always crying over other people money. Instead of creating, inventing like England off XIX century the social discourse now is always how to tax more and more and more. Learned nothing from 70’s.

      Obviously this is unsustainable but the lesson will be long and painful.

  20. Do you guys who know what you’re talking about (‘cos I don’ t) think we rely too heavily on NATO Article 5? I mean if it was just the UK vs Whoever (eg a certain South American country springs to mind) and we didn’t have the backing of NATO it seems to me we’d be up the creek without a paddle!

    • We didn’t have NATO Article V backing in 1982…

      As for Argentina today, I suspect the Salvation Army could beat them in a fight these days.

      • Article 5 only corresponds to an attack in the North Atlantic region, it’s very specific about that. Because when it was written the US was not going to underwrite the security of British and French (or any others) colonies

          • Sean, the comment mentioned Article 5 backing in the context of 1982, otherwise known as ‘The South Atlantic Campaign’ so surely the point about where article 5 applies is entirely relevant? Perhaps pick on someone who is not expanding on what you are saying and perhaps doesn’t know what they’re on about.

          • It’s not my problem you can’t grasp the concept of sarcasm.

            It was Mikka that raised the supposed the issue of relying on NATO and the that it on our own we’d struggle against a certain South American nation. I was pointing out we managed last time without NATO.

            I suggest you bother reading an entire thread next-time for context before feeling the need to post the obvious.

          • I suggest you let go of intellectual snobbery and stop being unnecessarily aggressive to people. You probably wouldn’t do that to my face. If you’re using sarcasm in comments for someone then your contribution is not helping them nor is it helping the debate.

            I know it was Mikka who made the comment, I just happened to reply to your point to build on it.

            In short, perhaps you should just stop being a twat (and yes, I’d say that to your face)

          • 😂 yes I suppose I might fall about laughing. I’m really not sure what you’re issue is, but once you’ve fixed swords and engaged in controlled extreme physical violence with the enemy odd threats of violence on the internet just seem to make One giggle.

          • I doubt it, you don’t appear to understand humour.

            Playing Call of Duty doesn’t count as ‘engaged in controlled physical violence’.

          • No, TELIC and HERRICK as an Infantry commander do though. If you can’t recognise someone talking about fixing swords then you have no idea who you’re talking too. That’s actually extremely offensive given i lost 16 friends on my tours, my Pl Sjt lost both his legs and I’ve had a lot of treatment for PTSD. But I suspect you were so far back the REME ROG call you a REMF. Probably why you resort to online bullying.

            Sorry I backed up your initial comment, I certainly won’t bother next time.

          • Thanks, but I shouldn’t have to write that. Sadly people on this forum seem to try and put others down rather than contribute to debate and I think that’s really sad. Everyone has a back story and it’s too easy to hide behind the internet.

            Thank you though, I wouldn’t count you among their number.

          • Hey don’t knock the REME! Surely you know that a company or squadron fitter section and an FRG are well forward.

            We had two NCOs engage an Iraqi tank in GW1 [Sgt Dowling MM and L Cpl Evans with the 16th/5th The Queens Royal Lancers LAD]. 

            – sadly it wasn’t a fair fight and they were KIA.

          • Agreed mate, but alas we all rip it out of the REME and the CS and CSS lads and lasses, even though the combat arms would last about 48 hours without you all! 👍

      • I’m also aware that the South Atlantic Campaign relied on huge logistical support of some 100+ ships to maintain critical supplies over some 8,000 miles. Could we do it again should the need arise? I’m not sure we could if all out war should arise again.

        • Ooops! Please disregard my comment above. In my excitement I’d forgotten we now have RAF Mount Pleasant which should makes things rather easier if there was a second time around. Apologies.

          • MPA is of course a tri-service base with a RN and Army presence too – and sometimes bootnecks.

          • Don’t forget we now have TLAMs on Astute subs that could rearrange the A/C in Argie control towers on their airfields etc😄

          • Mikka you win the UKDJ award for the first poster in a long while to acknowledge a mistake during a verbal firefight! Well done that man/person! We all talk shite/make mistakes on occasion, the big thing is how we deal and acknowledge them 👍

    • On the contrary, regards the South Atlantic our capability now is superior to 1982. It is the numbers that are lacking.

      • The original point I was trying to make (apologies for my lack of clarity) was how much our reliance on NATO influences cutbacks in our armed forces? If we didn’t have NATO backing i suspect the defence budget would look considerably different? I’m wondering if cutbacks are more severe because we have NATO to fall back on? But I guess that’s the point of NATO as most countries simply can’t afford the budgets necessary to go it alone.

        • No worries Mikka. 👍 It may well do. The worst cuts are to enablers that enable us to conduct out of area non NATO operations.

  21. Our Tory government (supposedly more pro military than labour) cut and cut and cut….all things that work and we need, yet they keep pouring money into Ajax
    They can hit and miss money up the wall all over the place ….. NHS, foreign aid, illegal immigration and politicians the selves
    No wonder there is so much despondency around

    • That was promised by Truss to get hawkish Tory party members to vote for her… before her ridiculous budget destroyed the party’s fiscal credibility.
      The 2% of GDP under Sunak will bill be more actual cash for the MoD than 3% of GDP under Truss would ever have been.

      • Oh I know that, however one cannot help but wonder what this says about the UK to its allies… promising on the one hand, then reneging when another leader steps in.

        • The U.K. didn’t promise to its allies, a leadership candidate promised it the membership of the party in an election.
          I’m pretty sure our allies can understand the difference between these even if you can’t – though I suspect you do actually do too. Things change in both life and politics, and no government in the U.K. can be bind the actions of a successor government.

          (I’m pretty sure our allies, like any unbiased observer, knew not to believe any of Truss’ promises.
          It was the Tory’s very own Jeremy Corbyn moment; an extremist elected by a hard-core membership and completely out of touch with both the wider voting public and reality. Fortunately the Tory’s dumped their mad-leader far faster than it took Labour too.)

  24. Our we could do what we always seem to do! pay a private company huge somes of money to move stuff that can go on a pallet, because this goes on a different budget line.

  25. In reality this is a cut in defence. It’s like saying that by getting rid of twenty-twelve seater mini buses and replacing them with six buses that carry forty each is an increase in capacity. All the while ignoring the loss of being able to be in more places at once and losing the flexibility of in getting into smaller places!
    Fishi Rishi & Jezza Cnut wouldn’t come out and say they would commit to the 3% as Truss did. Instead, this is a cut via the back door.

    The French leaned on the RAF as they lacked sufficient air transport during their bash in Mali. That tells us we had a real and decent capability. When will they sneak out the dropping of the F35 T2 purchase?

    Irrespective of how poorly Russia are currently doing, they may get it right in the end. After all, they have numbers to throw at their problem and that strategy is seeing them make gains every day. They are still a threat. China will chose to kick off at some point, we all know it. Then we have Iran. Reading the current US intel view, kicking off against Saudi may be the solution they resort to in order to stop there internal problems, for which they blame the Saudi’s. Not forgetting Yeman and the attacks on Saudi by the Iranian’s.

    If anyone thinks the UK will sit out of any one of those, they are wrong. I am increasingly angry at what our forces are lacking. I had a weekend with my old mob a few weeks ago and the morale is on the floor. I was told stories of things being so out of date they are in danger of falling apart. Let’s not kid ourselves, it appears the government and MOD are telling themselves that all is fine, “look at this shiny project here and the other one there”.

    We are at our very own 1937. If the government doesn’t sort out the issue with these back door cuts, we will be seeing the murder of British servicemen. Why do I say murder? Because they, the Civil Servants/bean counters are cutting too much. The US has restarted their production to replace the stock given away to Ukraine. No such word from the British government, despite giving

    As the second largest donor, the UK has committed £2.4 billion in military assistance to Ukraine thus far and has made a pledge to match that assistance in 2023. The UK is also hosting a training programme, supported by a number of allies, with the aim of training 10,000 new and existing Ukrainian personnel within 120 days.

    20 M109 155mm self-propelled guns and 36 L119 105mm artillery 
    50,000 shells
    7200 NLAW
    240 Javalins
    Six Stormer vehicles fitted with Starstreak anti-air missile launchers and hundreds of missiles
    Our entire inventory of Brimstone 1 and dozens of Brimstone 2.
    120 armoured fighting vehicles
    82,000 helmets
    8,450 sets of body armour
    Over 5,000 night vision devices
    Counter-battery radar systems.
    Drones, including hundreds of loitering aerial munitions.

    The above are just some of the long list. If I said there’s items there that we were short on in Afghanistan, I cannot tell you how angry it makes me when we were lacking something to reply with while under fire.

    • Where are Russia making gains ? M109’s do not come from UK stock they came from a Belgian private arms dealer. L119’s are ex Australian Army. L119 is not standard issue in British Army that’s L118. Most of the rest of the kit and weapons are shelf life time limited. If they weren’t sent to Ukraine they would have to be disposed of. You have a valid point on Artillery shells and ATGM’s but the main limitation there is industrial capacity not money. All in all all these munitions and systems were bought with war with Russia in mind. They are doing what they were designed and built to do and doing it extremely well. The Russian Armed forces are being systematically destroyed by Ukraine with our and others help. On China the US, Japan and Taiwan will be the main opponents of China. No-one believes the UK will be fighting China alone or will be providing much more than symbolic assistance in such a war. On Iran. If Iran invades Saudi the GCC will be joined by the USA, UK and probably Egypt, Turkey and France.
      You make valid points about aged and inadequate equipment particularly for a country with the 4th largest defence budget in the world but that in itself poses questions that are rarely asked here or elsewhere.

  27. The latest 10 year equipment plan and the NAO report are not always easy to follow but because of the 4 year £16b uplift, there is for now no huge black hole.
    The effects of higher inflation over a 10 year period cannot be accurately forecast but will obviously increase pressures on the defence budget just as they. will on other budgets here and abroad.
    It does seem the initial proposals for Type32 and MRSS have been withdrawn by RN for a rethink. Better to do that now than suffer unplanned cuts to balance the books later.
    My guess is that any new defence review might have less emphasis on global Britain and more on security challenges nearer home.
    At least there is evidence of improving lethality._ NSM, CAMM on the type 45s, more MRLS systems, and there is nothing to indicate long overdue modernizing of army equipment is under threat. .(Ajax isn’t o money problem but a contractor failure)

  28. A sign that the MOD is having to belt tighten after its recent spending naval related spree and ultimately a very disappointing spending review after previous high expectations. Is it too late to save the last (10-14?) C-130Js – or have they already been sold? In my head retaining them always seemed a more cost effective option than using Atlas A400M’s in a medium-lift tactical role. Sledger hammer to crack a nut sometimes. It costs about £5000 a hour to fly a C-130J, the MoD has decide in its wisdom that it “not in the public interest” to disclose the hourly cost of flying a A-400M, but I bet its over £10,000.

  30. Britain is being invaded, same as the USA, with the connivance of Government in both cases. The invaders have to be paid-off, I mean -for. Of course it will come from military spending. The West is thoroughly buggered.

    • I am sure the tempest will be more world-beating kit… Things have not been looking so great lately but I hope I’m wrong.

    • Something I have not figured out is what happens when two truly stellar aircraft (NGAD and Tempest) eventually meet at the proverbial pass during the inevitable foreign sales phase. Perhaps, w/ some luck, enlightened views will prevail w/in AUKUS framework. 🤔😳

      • Official Policy at the moment is the Navy and Airforce’s new fighters wont be exported (and would struggle with reports of unit cost in the $200m-$600m range “More than an F-22 less than a B21”). I could see a fringe case for someone like Australia getting some of the B21 down the line but not straight away. US exports will be reliant on the F-35/F-18/F-16 for some time yet.

  33. Wallace is reported in the Torygraph as being in favour of scrapping the remaining AS90 as “not good enough…short of range” and “outgunned by most of its peer group”

    Well, we have known that for years. Posters here have long wanted to retire Britain’s old AS-90 which fires 155mm shells, in favour of increased numbers of the M270 multiple launch rocket system. Or even the very good and British M777

    We have given six M270 MLRS plus ammunition to Ukraine, from a total of around 40 systems. Personally, I would like to see the Army receive Archer – which is an outstanding off-the-shelf product, even tho its not tracked

    • AS90 should have had major upgrades over the years. We always used to do a major upgrade at Base Overhaul for all A vehicles, roughly every 7 or so years (and award a new Mark number) – that does not seem to happen now. [If you look at how many Marks of Chieftain that evolved, you would be surprised].

      You need both tube artillery and rocket artillery, not just the latter. M270 certainly has range but ammunition is more expensive – you always need a mix of systems to complement each other.

      The British M777 is a towed gun which has zero crew protection – and less mobility than a SPG. It us however needed to replace or complement the 105mm towed gun.

      I agree we also need truck-mounted artillery such as Archer (long overdue), as well as modern/upgraded SPGs, towed artillery and rocket artillery.

      • Morning Graham. I wouldnt disagree with any of that. The problem we have is that governments of whatever flavour have prioritised the NHS over defence – and as long as we accept 500,000 migrants a year they will have to continually increase the size of the NHS budget.

        They could go for productivity increases. The NHS is of the largest employers in the world, with a headcount approaching 1.2 million. Less than half of these people are clinically qualified doctors, consultants, nurses, or laboratory people. These rest are dead wood in administrative positions, working in layer upon layer of management structure on humungous salaries with index-linked noncontributory final salary pensions – and who all go home on friday lunchtime.

        Some that I speak to are hopefull about Hunt’s SDSR. Maybe defence will get a real increase. I would use some of it to sort out the total shambles that is the RAF

        • “The NHS is of the largest employers in the world, with a headcount approaching 1.2 million. Less than half of these people are clinically qualified doctors, consultants, nurses, or laboratory people. These rest are dead wood in administrative positions…”

          That’s not true at all that they’re dead wood, and it’s basically like saying everyone in the armed forces that aren’t in frontline combat roles are dead wood.

          Both organisations require a large number of support staff/troops.

          Re: Hunt. I’d hope he’d announce an increase in defence spending, seeing as during his own bid to become Prime Minister in 2019 he was pushing for a massive increase in the MoD budget. Probably just wishful thinking on both our parts, though.

          • Apparently when fully established we only have about 12,000 fighting infantry. The largest Corps in the Army is still the Royal Logistics Corps, followed by the Royal Engineers, RHA, the Sky Sabre chaps/chappeses…..

            Trust me, most of the admin roles in the NHS are bean counters reporting back to government how the NHS has spent our money. HR are next, then management of the Trusts, IT people

            The only people who count in the NHS are the doctors, nurses, consultants, technicians, lab people, ambulance drivers, paramedics, cleaners…….. I don’t think the NHS would miss 150,000 bean counters

          • You say that but some of those bean counters make sure that the doctors, nurses, paramedics, cleaners etc get paid – if the medical professionals don’t get paid do you honestly expect them to come to work? Some of the HR people you mention are there to ensure that they don’t get mistreated, no bullying in the workplace, able to take their annual leave etc.

            Who do you think manages the buildings and grounds to ensure they’re in decent working order? Who orders stock e.g. gloves, masks, scrubs, syringes etc, or organises contracts for suppliers, building/refurb companies, or even simple things like laundry? Without which medical supplies would dry up, buildings would fall apart and beds would have no sheets on.

            I’m not denying that there are roles in the NHS that don’t need to be there and could be culled e.g. Diversity & Inclusion managers, but I think you’re vastly underestimating the work that many of the people you call useless actually do.

            If you cut 150,000 of those roles the NHS would quickly grind to a halt.

        • What you’ve said about the NHS is almost wholly simply not true and it’s very disturbing that you even think that.

          I love the UK’s armed forces and want to see them properly equipped and staffed. But I don’t want the UK to end up like the US, where basic things like healthcare are a major concern for a lot of people.

          • Nobody wants a privatised NHS, honest. The only time it was seriously discussed was in the Thatcher era, when she famously asked at the 1989 Tory party conference “Why should they have an appendectomy if they can’t afford it?”

            The NHS could lose 100,000 middle managers and nobody would notice – especially not front line medical people and probably not the patients, either

          • The NHS could lose 100,000 middle managers and nobody would notice –

            Sorry but you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You need to stop getting your information from The Sun or the Daily Mail or Express.

        • Thanks David, Defence will always have a lower priority than the NHS – unless we are in an existential General War.

          I am surprised that you think the RAF is in total shambles, equipment-wise – can you elaborate? New A400M Atlas, F-35Bs, P-8 Poseidons coming into service and then Aeralis soon to replace Hawk T1s, NMH competition well underway to replace Puma – not bad.

          I think it is the army that is the worst off for equipment.

          • Excessive wokery from the senior ranks, only about 60 Typhoons airworthy at any one time, with none of them having the advanced AESA radars yet – despite funding being announced over two years ago. Severe disruption to the fast jet training programe as the Hawks need new engines. We now have more F35B than qquaified pilots to fly them. Half the Red Arrows have been sacked thanks to piss poor management, the Air Marshal Andrew Turner scandal – who retired (forced??) in May. The corrosive blame atmosphere current at Cranwell.

            And scrapping the Hercs is a bad mistake, especialy as we will not be buying more A400

        • I think you will find that bit about “non contributory final salary pensions ” is not correct. the only people to have “”non contributory pensions” are in fact the armed forces.

    • I’d be uneasy about the M777. Yes it’s British but it’s also large, towed artillery.

      Ukraine has shown the value and effectiveness of self-propelled artillery, enabling you to shoot & scoot. Russia’s relied on towed artillery which has been hammered by HIMARS, M270 etc.

    • The M777 which seems to be a very fine artillery piece although originated in the UK. Is about 80% American made. Including the barrel.. and that is where it is assembled.

      • From memory, UK makes the titanium components. UK also does not field the gun, whereas the US does. Hardly surprising there is no UK production.

  34. The first duty of any government is defence.
    Everything else is secondary.
    We need to boost the budget to 3% ASAP.
    We have a war in Europe for Christ’s sake! It is total madness to be cutting anything.
    I cant support any party that doesn’t increase to 3%

    Our virtue signalling politicians would rather look good at the UN by giving money we should be spending on defence to other countries while other countries like France, Spain, Italy, Japan etc give much less. We should tell the world how much we have done and now it is for others whilst we invest in ourselves.

    We used to give 0.7% gdp in foreign aid, now 0.5
    Japan gives 0.1%, France 0.3%, Germany 0.5%, Spain 0.2%, S Korea 0.1 etc..
    That is an extra £12 billion or so per year more for defence.

  35. As always Government and MOD decision making are putting this country’s defence and security at risk. Less ‘Jollies’ and smaller expenses budgets would go along way to having more money for defence. Projects like Ajax should be scrapped and GE should pay hefty Compensation for non delivery. Born the MOD and Government need to rethink the their procurement strategy. 8 years to put a single new Frigate into service is unacceptable. In the current world crisis with Russia and China equipping and supplying the nations armed forces is more important than the egos of Political Parties, their Leaders and MP’s.

    • Why scrap Ajax when reports suggest that the bugs have been fixed and MoD approve of the fixes and have embarked on the Reliability Growth Trial?

      8 years to get a new frigate into service is very fast – why do you think otherwise?

      Fully agree that HMG should fund Defence properly given threats which affect our nation.

  37. The Tory governments since 2010 have made a right mess of defence. We have the smallest army for 300 years but still can’t afford to equip it anywhere bear properly. Plus the smallest RAF combat power in its history yet we are under the cosh and retiring Typhoon F2s prematurely, along with umpyy cuts to support and ISTAR aircraft.

    Only the Royal Navy has been largely unaffected, which is a rather odd and lopsided strategic decision.

    I think we have got to crunch point now. Blair/Brown maintained defence spending at 2.5% of GDP and an army of 105 000 over their 13 years in office, despite having to cut various naval and air programmes. In the Tories 12 years in power, the 2.5% of GDP has become a dodgy 2.0%, dodgy thanks to the raft of things Osborne shoehorned into the budget, the army has been butchered down by more than 30,000 and the RAF has suffered heavy and repeated cuts in aircraft numbers.

    We can’t get any smaller in personnel numbers or equipments, we could only mobilise a small token force for NATO operations and have next to nothing for out-of-area ops, let alone any supposed tilt to Indo-Pacific, where the political drive/posing is completely divorced from our threadbare defence resources.

    HMG has got commit to raising defence exenditure now. If Sunak and Hunt have no immediate readies, then they need to commit to increasing the defence budget incrementally, I.e. a bit every year until we get to 2.5%, hopefully by 2030, then again over the next decade to 3%. Wallace will be judged on this, talk is all very well but won’t cut the mustard.

    There are actually quite a lot of MPs calling for this, HMG has managed to sidestep Parliamentary scrutiny by no longer having debates on the defence vote. Can’t believe they get away with this, but the power of the Tory whips us legend.

    • 100% agree, very well said. It’s almost as if the government hasn’t noticed that there is a war raging in Europe and that the world has changed. One wonders what Labour would do. Having been quite vocal about increasing the defence budget after the Russian invasion of Ukraine have been very quiet recently.

  38. The Conservative Party , the Party of Law and Order and Defence has done nothing but erode capability.
    This decision is s disgrace. Wait for Type 32 to be trimmed and many other programmes deferred or cancelled.

  39. As usual, the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.
    Putin must be rubbing his hands in glee watching this, it’s like something out of “ Yes minister “.

    A complete farce !

  40. So 14 C130s to go.
    The replacement being an aircraft with higher speed , longer range, bigger load capacity and a bigger cargo hold for bigger items such as a chinook…
    Yes the Army would like to keep 3 for SF. Fine. Let them take on the burden of operating a 3 bird fleet.

    The RAF should look at an inter theater lifter, possibly on a long term lease or using a civilian operator on contract. That would lift the burden on the A400, C17 and Voyager fleet.

    • But there are no replacements for the 14 Hercs. The transport fleet is simply being cut, as everything else in defence, to reduce public expenditure for ideological reasons and likely
      now economic ones.

      22 A400 can not airlift the load of 21 A400 and 14 stretched Hercs, it is a 30% cut in airlift capability. Nor can the Atlas take on landings on short/austere airfields/landing strips, which could well be required in future ops, not just SF ones.

      The fact that Atlas can lift more and has a longer range is not really a valid reason for cutting the transport fleet. Particularly when the Hercs are paid for, have years of service to go, are less expensive to run than Atlas and can go places Atlas can’t. It is an indefensible and short-termist political cut, quite divorced from defence needs.

  41. Well shock, horror gasp! It seems like the RAF gave up on that pretty quickly. Where was Ben Wallace fighting his corner there then?

    • The RAF are supreme political operators – but they only pick the fights they can win. Same is probably true of Ben Wallace.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here