Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has made defence and security a top priority in his first press conference following the initial meeting of his new Labour cabinet.

Speaking from 10 Downing Street, Sir Keir laid out his administration’s commitment to these crucial areas.

On his first full day in office, Sir Keir revealed he had already spoken with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “It is for me to be absolutely clear that the first duty of my government is security and defence, to make clear our unshakable support of Nato,” he stated.

Emphasising the UK’s solidarity with Ukraine, he added, “And of course to reiterate, as I did to President Zelensky yesterday, the support that we will have in this country and with our allies towards Ukraine.”

Sir Keir also announced an upcoming strategic review of the nation’s military capabilities. “The strategic review will start shortly of our capabilities and an assessment of what is needed where – that we can do straight away,” he said.

He confirmed Labour’s pledge to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, a key promise from their election manifesto.

However, he cautioned that this would be managed within fiscal constraints: “The commitment to 2.5% is real but it will be within our fiscal rules and we will not be tempted, as the last government was, to pretend that the money is there now, which isn’t there.”

Highlighting the immediate tasks at hand, Sir Keir said, “We have a huge amount of work to do. So now we get on with our work.” He also outlined his travel plans, which include visits to Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales before returning to England and then heading to the US for the NATO summit next Tuesday.

Promising transparency and decisiveness, Sir Keir remarked, “Look, in relation to the tough decisions, we’re going to have to take the tough decisions and take them early and we will. We will do that with a raw honesty.”

Next week, the Prime Minister will head to Washington DC for the NATO summit, where he will further discuss the UK’s defence commitments and international security issues.

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

130 COMMENTS

  2. A labour PM using his first speech to make a commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.

    Things can only get better 😀

    • All new administrations must undertake a security review. They cannot trust that the last government did a good job or that an old review is still relevant. It is very clear that we cannot rely on 100% availability from one carrier!

        • The RN does not have any cruisers SB, was that a Freudian slip on a hankering after cruisers…or a spellcheck/predictive text fail 😂

          • That was auto mangle – it was supposed to say carriers…..

            Although you could argue that T45 is cruiser sized!

          • Huh, thought you were making a sly reference to a RN cruiser squadron of yore, which no longer exists due to previous reviews by HMG. 😉

          • You can argue but lose 🤔,OPV is 90m long and if you just look at HMS Belfast (Light Cruiser) she is almost 190M long. Also compare weight and you will see there is a big difference…. or have I just fallen into an argument trap?

          • Okay:

            HMS Pelorus:
            3rd Class Protected Cruiser.
            Displacement: 2,100t
            Length: 95m
            Width: 11m
            Draught: 4.9m

            HMS Tamar:
            Offshore Patrol Vessel,
            Displacement: 2,000t
            Length: 91m
            Width: 13m
            Draught: 3.8m

            The Rivers are Crusier sized.

            You just arbitrarily chose to pick HMS Belfast as a comparison point because it suits your argument, but there’s a huge variation in Cruiser sizes.

          • I wasn’t picking an argument however I had no idea they called such a small ship a cruiser, you learn something new every day.

        • I get that you meant carriers SB – our last cruisers were probably the Tiger class, the last of which, HMS Blake, was decommissioned as late as 1979.

          If you are sure that we need the carriers for the defence of the Euro-Atlantic region (and probably the northern and eastern areas of the Atlantic would be relevant to the RN) then they would pass Labour’s NATO test…but some may not be as convinced.

      • It is highly unlikely they will scrap a carrier. It would be politically not a good look to make a big deal about defence and then ditch a major asset. Also the need to have two carriers for a credible force is obvious given issues of reliability.

        • Folk here talk about Labour perhaps putting one carrier into ‘extended readiness’ ie mothballs. Who knows?

          It would be a bad move militarily due to the drastically reduced availability.

          Would it save much money? It would still have to be maintained to a high standard, occasioning cost. What would happen to the crew? If all but a skeleton crew were posted to other ships, you haven’t saved manpower costs.

          • personally Graham , I think your analysis is spot on! The attraction of saving the labour overhead of one carries is tempting. Plus off course the RN has a problem with staff recruitment and retention.

    • It’s 2025 we do one every 5 years now, it’s standard. Carriers won’t be affected, there are no budget cuts coming.

  4. To be fair to the guy, at least he has a democratic mandate, unlike the last guy….

    I don’t hold out much hope of both carriers remaining Operational under Labour.

    It’s going to be one Operational, one in reserve, swapped every 5 years I suspect.

    That’s for starters, they will likely see less importance in them with a probable European NATO pivot coming along with revised defence priorities.

    Possibly a cancellation of the second F35B order too….

    • Morning John, I guess something will have to give to make progress in other areas. Some will call that a win and others a loss depending on their priorities. If it goes the way you expect I’d rather have an aircraft carrier in reserve than sold off, at least it can be reactivated. We’ll find out soon enough who has shouted the loudest from within the MOD.

      • Well the army tend to make the most noise at the best of times, as they’re in the biggest mess, and need the biggest budget.

        • Hi mate, very much depends on the suspected NATO pivot, if they do, it will be spending in the Army’s favour…

          • Not necessarily. Ukraine has proved that air superiority is absolutely essential. If either Russia or Ukraine had managed to attain control of the air, the battlelines would look very different

      • I think so, it’s looking like we are sticking a 2%, as Starmer has booted the 2.5% bullshit ball way into the long grass…

        So yep, something (or things) will have to be slowed, cancelled or reduced in scope.

        Could we be looking at a capability loss again, possibly, but seriously, what’s left to slice away??

        Labour will absolutely tilt the Puma replacement in Leonardos favour, no doubt..

        So a load of cash burnt there….

        I wouldn’t want the bloody job mate!

        • I’m happy to wait and see, defence has been mentioned and while he’s not nailed down a date on 2.5% I think its something he aspires to but there’s going to be a lot of departments coming out with all sorts of noble causes that could do with more cash. One thing in the MOD’s favour is the state of the world sadly with Ukraine front and centre, that’s going to make defence hard to overlook.

          As you say, its not a job I fancy, certainly in the short term its going to be very fine margins across the board, not much wiggle room until they get that economy started and the tax money comes rolling in….. hopefully.

          • With the Ukraine war, we have gifted a lot of platforms and munitions to Ukraine without all of it being replaced. The Ukraine war may therefore be responsible for a significant reduction in our warfighting capability.

            Not saying it isn’t going to a good cause, just that we have reduced holdings of equipment as a consequence, which reduces our resilience.

            Also, IR Refresh 23 and its associated DCP looking at lessons from the Ukraine war did not advocate any increase in platform or manpower numbers anywhere.

        • I wouldn’t be surprised if they push for Airbus to win the Puma replacement.

          The optics for a new factory opening is 10 times better than ordering from an existing factory.

          Yeovil still has 25 Merlins on the order books plus 13 upgrades. They’ll also be busy with Proteus.

          It’s not a good long term strategy but in the short term it’ll look good

      • I’d tend to agree as both RN & RAF want it and Washington won’t be happy to see the purchase cut and the, to their mind, vital carriers reduced in effectiveness.

        There comes a a point where too small lacks punch and when it comes to a hot situation you need a certain level of mass to be effective.

        I’m not hearing very encouraging things about Crows Nest which is a big worry.

      • Well Jim,

        If Labour decide on one carrier available, with the other in a reserve/ slow refit rotation, they may decide that two active Squadrons is enough, so stick to 48 and can the second tranche of 24.

        We can only hypothesise at the moment, but it would be my guess. Certainly European NATO seems a higher priority than out of area ops to the new Government.

        This would be regarded as easy low hanging fruit to save money and re deploy sailors

        • I could support that if canning tranche 2 was instead withholding the order until UK weapons integration.
          With the second carrier in reserve the threat becomes very believable.

          • We will see, having a single Operational carrier at any one time and killing tranche 2 F35B is simple low hanging fruit, I really can’t see anything else after so many years of cuts…

            It would release crew for the new T26/31’s and would be a substantial short term cash saving.

            I would happily put a £10 bet on it, but it would be a bet I would very happily lose !

            SDSR25 here we come chaps, let’s see what happens when you wring every last drop from your 2% GDP dry and can’t fund what needs funding by some margin.

            I’m fearing SDSR 2010 all over again personally…..

          • I agree with your analysis John- spot on. As I posted earlier “the attraction of saving the labour overhead of one carrier is tempting. Plus off course the RN has a problem with staff recruitment and retention”

            P.S. goodbye to the Type 32 programme too!

          • I fear so mate, the Operational funding of what we currently have, coupled with new vastly expensive programmes, all constrained by 2%….

            On top of that, Labour were always criticising the small size of the army under the Tories, so they have to try and expand that too….

            That’s a serious head scratcher!

            They will find it’s terribly easy to shout from the opposition benches, a rather different view from the government benches.

        • “…Certainly European NATO seems a higher priority than out of area ops to the new Government…”

          Nonsense, Italy has recently dispatched it’s carrier to the Indo-Pacific!
          Who says, European countries only operate warships and carriers, in European NATO area?
          Germany has also a frigate operating out of NATO area.

          • It’s not nonsense, Labour Party policy is squarely on European NATO.

            This will be reflected in their SDSR25 review, of that I will happily have a bet with you.

      • To save money of course. If one carrier is in mothballs or sold off, then the justification for a reduced F-35 fleet can be made.
        [Not saying I advocate the above….I don’t]

    • Why on earth would f35 orders be cancelled (unless the block 4 farce is the reason which would be understandable)?

      Regardless of whether the navy focuses more on Europe the f35 is needed as a land based aircraft. The typhoon, good as it is, cannot survive the highest risk environments. The need for f35 grows as each year drags slowly on.

      • Exactly just for numbers alone we need the F35B buy.

        Otherwise we need more Typhoon.

        But as you say F35B is complementary to Typhoon and using them together is a force multiplier.

        So having a force of 160 mixed F35/Typhoon is a credible force (just about).

      • So the F35 is needed as a land based aircraft? I would debate that because of the SEAD Typhoon but let’s say you’re right. If you are, as things stand we are supposedly going to have a third squadron in the 2030’s. Explain to me how two squadrons are going to keep the RAF and two carriers equipped or even one carrier for that matter. The new order for F35’s is yet to be placed, if at all and again lets give Labour the benefit of the doubt, and they will not be in service for at least 6/7 years.

          • I know we don’t but the Germans have just ordered the new version and more standard Typhoons as well. The problem remains though eithr way. How do we do all that is required with two squadrons of aircraft?

          • Yes, Just read it this morning. If there ever was a time to improve our lot now is it…BUT?

      • As mentioned to Jim, If they decide on one active carrier, then they will almost certainly stick to 48 F35B’s and cancel tranche 2.

        They have to find the cash to fund Tempest and AUKUS while remaining within 2%, so something will have to give…

    • It’s a pretty limited democratic mandate with 33% of the vote. Split opposition has often had this effect but never to such an extreme extent. Regardless-
      The reality of an annual deficit of@£120b and every public sector organisation clamouring for more means there will be little extra money for defence.
      I doubt they will scrap a carrier- it would look bad especially as they were ordered by a Labour government. But they might revive the abandoned idea of re purposing one for an amphibious role. This would allow Bulwark and Albion to be fully decommissioned and a further buy of F35s to be deferred. It would also reduce the number of MRSS needed.
      With funds already earmarked to expand Barrow, AUKUS is probably safe.
      I expect a re emphasis on NATO rather than a global role so the army is probably safe from further cuts and contracted re equipment will go ahead. Whether numbers increase is more doubtful.
      I think it unlikely that escort numbers will increase much from the contracted T26 andT31s which might make sense since the RN can’t seem to crew its current fleet. So no T32.
      For the RAF, the big question is how much the new government is willing to plough into Tempest. They can’t afford a money pit like F35. The USAF is expressing doubts about its own 6th gen NGAD aircraft, because of complexity and a likely high unit cost leading to a reduction in fleet size ( F22 mark 2). Outright cancellation might be a step too far, but slowing the programme down would save money short term.
      I would like to see a further order of Typhoon, essential if the Tempest programme is delayed.

    • While I hate Sunak I have to point out that his democratic mandate came from commanding a majority in the HoC, same as every PM.

      • That’s true, but, at least old U turn led his party to government, so he has both a real and personal mandate.

        The endless chopping and changing by the Tories was frankly pathetic. They absolutely need to spend 5 years om the naughty step, with a smacked bottom and have a good think about their behaviour!

        It will be very interesting to see how they rebuild, with a eye to picking up Reform voters, steer to the right and be un-apologetic about it, or more weak, middle of the road nonsense.

        The latter will see Labour get three terms in my opinion.

        I will guarantee that reform will pick up bi election victories along the route ( from both Labour and Tory seats), probably end up with 8/10 MP’s by the end of this Parliament.

  5. “Strong Defence”
    Neil Kinnock promised that one. I fear “Defence” means just that, so goodbye to a whole range of capabilities that we don’t want to offend anybody with.
    And we don’t need our network of overseas bases to defend these Islands.
    But in fact, we do.

    • You have absolutely no basis for any of that, Neil Kinnock and Keir Starmer are about as close a match as Margaret Thatcher and Lizz Truss.

      • Jim, Jim, please. I never say anything without a purpose or genuine thought behind it, whether it’s right or wrong.

        I do, actually, and what I was thinking of was this….
        I recall Neil Kinnock wanted to convert Tornado GR1 Strike aircraft into interceptors.

        So to be more “defensive” and take away offensive capabilities. At the height of the Cold War.

        The UK might end up with fantastic home based Air Defence, a bigger army that can only cross the channel or is garrisoned in eastern Europe, and more frigates patrolling the GIUK.

        And we’d be poorer for it.

        As the world is out there, and the military needs a footprint in it alongside allies to counter enemies and take operations to them.
        Not sit and wait for them to come to us.

        Proactive rather than reactive…something Gareth Southgate isn’t great at!!

        Now I know they’ve already mentioned overseas territories, right to self determination and all that. I’ll believe it when I see it based on Labour rhetoric ongoing for years, until they have a chance to be in the driving seat. Then silence.

        That, Jim, was what I meant.

        • Believe it or not, the new Labour government will prove not be the worst possible outcome, an isolationist Labour government intent upon disarmament. Appears there will be a commitment to AUKUS, BOT, ENATO, etc. Fortress UK (solely) not yet embraced as policy. The funding to accomplish these goals? TBD. An amazing concept by the collective populations of prosperous western democracies, that there exists an inalienable right to continuation of the same, w/ no/minimal costs. Don’t believe the Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles or Ukrainians have quite the same viewpoint. They perfectly understand that if one f**ks up defence policy, nothing else may matter, for the country may well cease to exist. An existential difference from, for example, housing policy, which is always amenable to change/adjustment. Rant over.

    • The world becomes more and more dangerous so more capability is needed and not less.

      The key to understanding MOD finances is the pensions curve. At what point in time does that number start to drop from the cuts in force numbers made in the 1970/1980’s.

      • Hello, that’s a very valid question that i’m pretty sure has been prominent in the thinking of most governments over the past 50 odd years, that and housing. It’ll take a War to reverse all that and a whole load of Propaganda to make the Cannon Fodder want to join up again and die horribly just like we are seeing in Ukraine’s re-run of trench warfare.

        • Uh?

          The point I was making is that pension costs have got to start dropping as a % of MoD budgets because personnel numbers dropped sharply.

          One those people die it drops to a widows pension…..

          There is a curve and that will, at some point, create headroom.

          • Umm, well yes, that’s what I was agreeing to, you said the pension thing was an issue, I agreed ? why did you not see that ?

      • That’s the thing. Was it? Or wasn’t it?
        See I was too young to follow with any precision. Any definitive links?

        As for “baseless nonsense spoon fed” well that works both ways. There’s been a hell of a lot of that against Reform these last month’s. Look at the 3 anti Reform articles here, all sensationalized based on individuals comments.

        “Its Thatchers fault the Falklands happened” screams the headline. No….it was the Argentines, but we were withdrawing Endurance, cutting Invincible, and the FO were making noises about discarding the islands. And that encouraged them, has been happily discussed here many times since and accepted. Until a Reform person days something.
        Twisted against Reform as part of the agenda.
        Then the rubbish about Adolf Hitler. Factually correct, he did inspire people. Twisted into “Reform are all neo Nazis”….again, an agenda.
        Reform end up with several unsavoury candidates…..Twisted, oh, Reform are all Nazis….
        Reality, Reform fielded candidates in less than a month and without an established party with the apparatus to vet correctly, some oddballs got through. A miracle they even managed that and to get the votes they did.
        And other parties have their oddballs too.
        Nope! Mass headlines that Reform are Nazi’s.
        So yes, Marked, Spoon Fed indeed….

        This has been going on against the Tories for many many years too. Note I’m not defending them at all, they’ve failed on so many levels and I helped get rid of them.

        Spoonfeeding happens on all sides.
        Send me a link if you’ve any definitive proof Kinook was not just another Michael Foot, and didn’t really want to convert GR1s into F2s, quite happy to re evaluate it.

          • You’re forgetting that the Tornado ADV F2/3 was a variant of the Tornado GR1 in the first place

          • No mate well a we’re F2-3 were new Aircraft just stretch version of GR1 specially for ADV. Needed longer fuselage to take the sky flash or sparrow missiles.But thank you. 👍

          • Yes, and no! As Andrew says.
            I loved the F3 myself, could have kept some on for SEAD.

          • Same here mate, the F3 was an aesthetically pleasing machine, the fuselage stretch made it much easier on the eye.

            An idea born out of the still born Japanese Tornado, was to produce a european strike Eagle, based on a reinforced F3 airframe, blue vixen radar and either uprated engines delivering 20,000 of thrust each.

            Such a multi role machine would have been quite something, the advantage being a good deal of the technology already existed, or required some investment to improve.

            F3’s and GR1’s could have been rebuilt to the new configuration.

            Imagine a post cold war RAF equipped with 12 Squadrons of such aircraft, it would have been transformative in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.

            Alas, the Eurofighter was already sucking the defence budget dry, so such a beast would never come to be.

          • No mate well we’re F2, F3 were new aircraft just a stretch version of GR1 specially for ADV .Needed longer fuselage to take the sky flash or sparrow missiles. But thank you. 👍

    • Hi Daniele,

      Well its been a ‘fun’ few days…

      You raise a reasonable point, Labour have had some silly ideas on defence especially in the 1980’s and recently the Euro focus has been emphasised which in its self is not unreasonable in the current circumstances but lacks strategic understanding, I believe.

      So whilst I agree that we face a period of uncertainty, not unusual, I think we need to wait see what comes out of the review. I suspect that much of what has been said by Labour so far has been said from the information vacuum of opposition, now that they are in government they are being briefed on the realpolitik (e.g. diplomatic and economic) and I think that we will see – well not much initially. As there is very very little financial headroom left and we are contracted, in political (Scotland – RN), diplomatic (USA – Carriers) and commercial (LM – F35) into a particular trajectory. So with luck we will continue to prioritise the RN and RAF, with the Army being gradually recapitalised and re-expanded to a minimum of 100k, hopefully a bit more eventually, with a view towards being able to support the Baltic / JEF states.

      I believe that is a possibility as the UK could and should take on greater responsibility for NATO’s maritime flank, especially in the light of possible US isolation. The UK and Europe will still need supplies coming in from overseas and the UK, and to a lesser extent France, are best placed to undertake this role with their established global networks and bases with Italy playing a significant role in the Med.

      This approach would also allow the UK (and France) to react to global situations in a supporting role to global allies and friends including the US. This would demonstrate to a skeptical US that we can and do ‘pull our weight’ and hopefully encourage them to stay engaged with NATO. If the US does go into a period of isolation then the UK taking on the maritime role becomes even important and sensible given our naval history and, surprisingly given recent history, enduring know how.

      I am, of course, being a bit optimistic but the trajectory of the threat we face is such that what I outline above (I hope) has a certain logical to it.

      Cheers CR

      • So do you envisage RN becoming a more North Atlantic based force ?
        Whats your view on Indo-China regards UK maritime capability- surely whether we like it or not it is a global issue and not just an American one.
        I’m interested how you see that dovetailing into an increased NATO/EU responsibility for the RN?

        • Hi grizzler,

          Good question mate. I think Daniele asked a similar question of me recently, and it comes down to flexibility… of course flexibility needs enough of the right people and equipment.

          So to answer your question in more detail the priority has to be protecting our home islands and way of life.

          Health warning – the following is very high level…

          Strategy Context
          As an island nation off the west coast of Europe we are likely to be a target to anyone who wishes to dominate the continent sitting, as we do, stride the sea and air routes between Europe, the Americas and the rest of the world. This is a key point that many do not grasp the significance of. Also as an island nation we are very dependent on food and raw materials to maintain the basics as well as our economy, especially in times of conflict.

          As such we need to secure our home bases and critical infrastructure as these are critical to us being able to stay the course.

          Home defence
          Home defence is the inner and last line of defence and requires some sort of specialist flexible ground force and with national GBAD both of which are lacking. I would see this being an Army responsibility with home based mobile all arms rapid response units and tactical SAM with the RAF responsible for air superiority over UK and theater level GBAD to defend military bases, major infrastructure and provide BMD. RN would responsible for maritime interdiction of threatening (raiding) forces and protection of infrastructure and home MCM.

          Marimtime Defence
          Then we need to be able to secure the maritime and airspace over and around the UK. This covers areas such as Greenland, Iceland UK (GIUK) Gap, Western Approaches, North Atlantic and the North Sea. This would obviously be primarily be an RN task, but they would need support from the RAF. Broadly and putting it very simply the ability to fight the 3rd Battle of the Atlantic. Clearly RN and RAF joint responsibility.

          NATO
          We also need to be able to support our NATO allies particularly those with a coast… So Norway is an obvious area we need to support and the Baltic states. These are the traditional land areas we have taken responsibility for. (The Baltic states follow our historical coastal march route across Europe from Normandy…) We also have to add in our key role in supporting Ukraine. Predominately an Army lead, supported by the RAF with the RN and RM responsible for North Norway. The RN and RAF would play significant support roles ensuring the deployed forces are adequately and timely resupplied.

          Global Trade
          However, as an island nation reliant on trade for our prosperity and many of the basics we also have to safe guard the sea trade routes, as witness the Houthis attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. This requires the ability to mount expeditionary missions.

          Reality
          To do all of this at the same time would require a navy of about 200 full spec warships, 600+ combat aircraft and an army a tad bigger than it currently is..!

          The fact is we cannot do it all simultaneously, something that WW2 demonstrated. However, the capabilities we need to re-enforce North Norway are pretty much the same that we need for expeditionary missions. So we can use the flexibility of a well balanced joint force to work with global allies to deter those who would seek to re-write the global rules based order and hopefully avoid a serious NATO / Russia and China confrontation.

          So I would suggest that 3% gdp spend at least would be needed to develop forces capable of contributing to the West’s global deterrent effort and enable us to maintain a sensible home defence capability. If the worst should happen we would need to pull our forces back to the NATO area to fully defend our home base and support our allies. So 2.5% is only a start.

          Cheers CR

          • Very interesting. I deployed with a regular brigade on Ex Brave Defender in 2-13 Sep 1985, a Military Home Defence (MHD) Exercise, which also exercised the new Home Service Force (HSF) raised specifically to do MHD.

            I believe there might have been a second, smaller such MHD exercise a few years later, but nothing since! HMG/MoD seems to have lost interest in MHD since the end of the Cold War. The HSF is of course long gone.

            There is very patchy coverage of the UK by the Regular army to do MHD – eg. across both west and east Sussex, there is just one reg army unit..and they are specialist AD gunners who would be deployed overseas if the NATO ‘balloon went up’. MHD might instead be a task for Army Reserve units, especially Infantry, freeing the Reg army to deploy overseas to the Continent.

            The Army (Reg + Reserve) seems to be too small to meaningfully defend the UK base and also to deploy overseas on those NATO tasks in Norway/the Baltics or perhaps elsewhere.

            No GBAD have defended UK fixed installations since the retirement of Bloodhound (some 783 were produced!!), all gone by July 1991 – even then they only defended V-bomber bases, whereas we need far more UK sites than just certain RAF airfields to be defended.

          • Hi Graham,

            I remember watching the Army Deploying to Europe on the news for a major exercise with a division deploying from the north east. If I remember rightly the lead units were arriving in the London area and the tail was still in Newcastle! Lots of Union Jacks on bridges all the way down the A1…

            Anyway with the Army reduced to 70k to 75k coverage is going to be very patchy indeed, so some kind of home base force is probably the way to go. The problem is what form should it take? Rebirth of the Territorial Army? A hybrid regular / part time force with utilising regulars coming to the end of their full time careers? Perhaps it could be all regular with volunteers signing up for a Home Defence Force contract, a bit like the Royal Gibraltar Regiment (RGR)?

            Then there is the question of how effective such a force could be. Many would instantly think of the WW2 Home Guard imagining Dads Army, forgetting that many of those men were WW1 vets and were treated with respect by regulars who went up against them in exercises prior to D-Day.

            Also any such home force would be very different to the Home Guard especially if it was recruited along the lines of the RGR. There would also be much to sort out in terms of pay and conditions differentials with the Regular Army, for example, but I don’t think it is beyond the realms of possibility. Ultimately, I think it would need to be equipped along mechanised infantry line with wheeled AFV, but initially it could consist of a few locally based light infantry units. It might even allow some to ‘try out’ military life before committing to the Regular Army.

            As I said above main effort would go towards the RN and RAF at least initially, but ultimately we will need more deployable ground forces with more fire power but a Regular Army of say 200k is not realistic anytime soon. So a well equipped Regular Army of say 100k to 120k, supported by a Home Defence Force might just allow us to step up and support NATO land forces, whilst the RN and RAF take leading roles in defending the maritime flank…

            Whatever we do we need to drastically improve our defence posture I just hope we have enough time for our politicians to fully wake up to the risks we face.

            Cheers CR

          • Hi CR, Just wondering if that mega-convoy was in the 80s – Ex Brave Defender?

            With the demise of BAOR/BFG, the vast majority of the regular army is based in the UK but of course the Field Force component (by no means all of the 73,000) is deployable world-wide.

            As I mentioned, I am not aware of the army being trained in the Military Home Defence (MHD) of the UK homeland. I don’t know if there is even an up-to-date and credible contingency plan for the ground defence of the UK. Our regs are orientated to expeditionary ops. It could be argued it would be a waste of their expertise to do MHD, and that should be done by another grouping. The HSF was to do that but was disbanded due to the end of the Cold War.

            The TA was re-branded as the Army Reserve in 2014 and is orientated to augmenting the Regular army principally on expeditionary operations. Again I do not believe they train for MHD. So basically no-one is ready to do MHD. Perhaps bring back the HSF or role part of the Army Reserve to do it as their primary role. Trouble is you may need some regs in the mix in case MHD is required very quickly and before the Army Reserve or a refreshed HSF is called up and in place, so maybe your hybrid approach is the way to go.

            We really should not think of the WW2 experience and ideas of ‘Dads Army’. We certainly did not do that on Ex Brave Defender (Regs and TA) – No-one applied that label to the HSF – a good idea that was killed off soon after it had started. Certainly they need to have tactical mobility.

            The Royal Gibraltar Regiment [and perhaps the FIDF] could be models for a UK-based MHD force.

            It has bothered me for some time that MHD has been alllowed to disappear as a scenario for which serious preparations and a well trained land force are required.

      • I do think army has got to get enough mid/high end kit.

        We are never going to be a large marching formations army.

        If we are countering Russian aggression we can and will do that maritime, we should be able to do a decent percentage of that air, land (I’m no expert) we should focus on heavy and long range fires with AAW cover – to create an environment for others to be able to operate.

        • Hi SB,

          Yeh, that sounds like a very sensible strategy for our contribution to NATO land forces… Certainly, fits with my thinking as I have laid out in answer to grizzler above.

          Cheers CR

          • Phrased that very badly.

            Meant mass of boots on the ground.

            UKPLC don’t see the need for that so we have to equip what we have as well as we can.

            Although, as I think we all know we need both if we are ever to operate independently.

          • Ahh, OK. Well we had masses of army boots on the ground for Op Banner (NI), Gulf War 1, various Balkans deployments, Gulf War 2, Afghanistan.

            Do these politicos have such short memories?

      • You can’t prioritize the RN and RAF while increasing the size of the army, all for the bargain basement 2.5% as it is currently measured. It would be a great approach if the money was there.

        • Hi Jon,

          Agreed which is why I say at the start of the last paragraph that at least 3% of GDP would be needed, although that is plucked out of the air. To be honest I doubt even that is enough, but at some point we are going to have to respond to the growing threat because the alternative would cost would be far more in treasure and blood.

          Cheers CR

  6. Starting with the review into needs and purpose is the right place to start rather than disjointed decision’s across and within the various Services. Predicting what will and won’t be cut now is playing into the hands of others by creating an atmosphere of inevitably and through that acceptance. 2% now, looking at needs and fiscal opportunities for increases to 2.5%. Ok. Accept that, Hold them to it!

    • Exactly, it’s a defence review starting on the presumption of an increase rather than cut in defence spending.

      Something we haven’t had for a long time. The last defence review conducted by labour in 1998 was the last real defence review we ever had rather than a Tory/LibDem cut exercise.

        • They go the two carriers delivered which was the centre piece, FRES was a cluster fuck stilled not delivered but I think that has far more to do with the army and its inability to know what it wants than the politicians.

          • 32 Escorts, 12 SSN, 23 Fast Jet Sqns was the main thing. Never happened.
            Carriers, yep, good.
            FRES, yeeees, agree on the generals going round in circles, but you need to dig a bit deeper on the number of army programs all cancelled. That was politicians.
            SDSR 97 was reasonable on paper, by 2004 the cuts were in full swing.
            Let’s hope this one is better, not hopeful I’m afraid as I’m not an ideological Labour supporter who sees the world that way.

            I look at the ORBAT. That is what speaks.
            Tories continued the Labour cuts. Will Starmer.

          • Hi DM. I felt the 2004 final numbers were “ok -ish” at the time. I seem to recall the goal of the peace dividend was to land roughly at half the 1980’s cold war force levels.

            Interestingly, the 2004 review left the RAF fast jet sqns and RN surface warship fleet at almost exactly 50%of 1989 levels.

            If only we could get back to those force levels!

          • ??
            The review to reduce the forces to a new post-Cold War level was the defence review published in summer 1990 (Options for Change), the logic for reduction being obviously the disappearance of the monolithic threat from the Warsaw Pact forces in eastern Europe. It was that which generated the much quoted ‘Peace dividend’. The Regular army reduced by 25% from 160,000 to 120,000 – and the reduction was achieved very swiftly using a redundancy programme.

            Subsequent cuts over the decades since were all without threat-based changes to justify them – they were just done to save money which could go then go into social programmes. Not heard about any formally organised plan to halve Cold War levels, although that was certainly what happened many years after – the army today at c.73,000 is well under half its late-80s Cold War figure.

          • Hi Graham , thanks for the reply. To add some clarity, the 50% future force level prediction was a general view pedalled by some defence analysts in the 90’s (seem to recall it was mainly from the USA?).

            I’m sure it was never UK government policy in the 1990s however. Interestingly though, the 2004 defence cuts left both the RN and RAF at almost exactly 50% of 1990 “sharp end” force levels. I’m unbale to offer commentary on the army, being unknowledgeable that regard.

            Personally, I was ok with these numbers. Being ex air force though, I’m of the view the RAF has been subsequently disproportionately disadvantaged .Post the 2004 cuts , the RAF had 16 fast jet sqns- today its 8 (7 Typhoons +1 f35).

            The 2010 defence review simply nailed the coffin shut.

          • Yes, we (UK) certainly did not have a 50% figure being pedalled. Reg army was cut by 25% under Options for Change (summer 1990 review) to bring them down to a level deemed suitable for the post-Cold war era and there was not envisaged in summer 1990 that future cuts would be justified or desirable. However they happened – several times over.

            All three services have been cut savagely in the last 30 years, since the justifiable post-Cold War cuts of the early 90s.

      • True, but Labour still cut the budget…

        I recall it was suggested that 16 SSN’S were required to meet the 98 reviews aims , the treasury piped up and said, sod off, no more than 12!

        Since then, Labour and the Tories have butchered the number to 7.

    • ‘ when it can be afforded’ Labour won’t find that money in the next 5 years as they set about borrowing, tipping GDP further into the red, increasing socal spending on unreformed state institutions and nationalising rail, creating a power industry etc, etc.

      They will pour billions more into the NHS a year and they will blow it without any appreciable difference.

      So it’s 2%, that means cuts again….

      As Dreadnought spending reduces, AUKUS and GCAP will seriously kick in, at about the same time, 2025.

      The money isn’t there, so something will simply have to go….

  8. Words only words , the reality Will be more cuts.
    Firstly forget the 2 Carriers operating at the same time even IS not impossible that one of them IS going to be mothballed.
    The defence review in UK always means CUTS.

    • I think you’re spot on re the carriers Micki. The attraction for the new government will be the saving in labour costs.

  10. About time too and why stop at 2.5%? It needs to be matched with an enhancement of our industrial base, especially ammunition.

  12. I call BS.

     “The commitment to 2.5% is real but it will be within our fiscal rules and we will not be tempted, as the last government was, to pretend that the money is there now, which isn’t there.” He is either committed to 2.5% or he isn’t.

    ….and is it appears Ukraine support is still coming from the defence budget and not supplemental budgets, which erodes UK defence.

  13. I’ll wait & see what actually happens. Tories always claimed to be expanding & investing in our forces as thay actually cut them mercilessly. So Mr Starmer, are you going to increase capabilities or cut them, all spin aside?

  14. Give them a chance as the last lots sold us down the river well and truly with their cuts and extension of kit well past their use by dates. The Carriers were never meant to be operational together, simply never the assets available for both but one operational and the other refit and maintained with small crew as we did in the past with the CVS’s, Crews can move over if needed to get the reserve one to sea. Its how its done folks. Major reforms needed in ALL GOVERNMENT Depts as they are extremely poorly managed and what we spent with nothing to show for it has been the case for many a year. We get good kit then dont update or maintain it to keep it current and available for the future. RAF SEAD is a major one and the antiship missiles the RN and RAF both used all gone. More NSM’s needed for the RN and RAF on their kit to hit out is a good way forward, proven, well liked and does more than whats on the tin.
    We will just all have to wait and see, but nothing will change much in the near term.
    Money, take the pensions out of the accounting (already been paid for by contributions of those receiving them). Nuc Deterrent also should be funded separately as it once was, and leave the 2%+ and you have cash waiting for the services. But there’s more chance of getting common sense coming to the front page and OUT THE WOKE from the services, too pink and fluffy these days…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here