John Healey MP and Al Carns MP have shown themselves to be that rare thing in current UK politics: politicians with a conscience and with values. They showed that when they resigned from their respective positions in the UK Ministry of Defence over the complete mess the UK Defence Investment Plan (DIP) is turning into.
I’m not going to go into detail about the DIP and the back and forth on it. There are plenty other people doing that. I would, however, like to focus on the broader point of where the UK wants to be (and is) when it comes to leadership on defence matters.
In short, the UK needs to decide one way or the other. The time of fudging and pretending through smoke and mirrors has gone. We are in a world where we need to make a choice. A difficult choice at that. Are we a leader or a follower?
The UK likes to see itself as a ‘soft power’ leader. Look at the focus on Net Zero and climate change for example. It allows us to take the moral high ground and, sometimes to be frank, be seen as preachy. So it’s leadership that is not always effective. However, it is the sort of leadership that doesn’t really cost a lot in terms of capital and other expenditure. Ultimately though soft power might be good, it doesn’t physically defend and protect the UK.
Which leads us to the fact that the current Government (and its predecessors) still want the UK to be seen as a reliable and effective partner in defence. Something which has, arguably, been reducing ever since the end of the Cold War, and certainly in the last ten years.
But if we are to be taken seriously then we need to spend cold hard cash, and that means we have to decide where that money comes from. There are always myriad demands on Government. That’s why it is tough to govern. But ultimately it needs to decide what the priorities are and what it wants to UK to be: a leader or a follower.
The first role of a government is to defend its citizens. There are, of course, significant differences as to the levels you might want to do this to. But if the UK continues to want to be seen as a strong and leading partner then the reality is the cost will be more.
If the Government is happy to sit back and let others take the lead then we can spend less. But, if that is the case, then we need to accept that we are no longer the power Government claims we are, or indeed the population seems to think we are. The bottom line is we can no longer rely on, or hide behind, the US when it comes to defence. President Trump has, rightly, called all of us out on our failure to spend enough on defence. If he has only been right on one thing it is this. NATO countries (including the UK) have not paid their way. And, as I’ve said before, the ‘Special Relationship’ really isn’t that special to the US.
What this all means is that we therefore need to team up with like-minded partners such as members of the EU, Canada (which has launched a large defence spending process), Australia and New Zealand.
But whereas before we could sit behind the US and not spend as much as we should have done, if we are to play a role in this modern era and alliance then we will not be able to do that. It is going to cost us money, and significant amounts of it. We can no longer freeload. The question is are we willing to pay that money and, if so, what are we going to stop spending on instead?
There are many different views and comments on this. Some based more on reality than others. But people like Lord Robertson and Tony Blair have made some extremely good points which need to be considered and which cannot be ignored. Well, they can be ignored, if the UK accepts that is no longer the power it thinks it is or seemingly wants to be.
So, if we want to be taken seriously we need to pony up the cash. Are our politicians willing to do that? Are they willing to take the flak from other areas where spending has been reduced? Or are they happy with the idea that we should play second fiddle to other countries such as France?
Because whether you like it or not that is the reality: we either spend and lead, or don’t and follow.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
I don’t buy the statement “politicians with a conscience and with values”.
Time will tell, but my money is on them already looking to jump ahead of Burnham getting voted in, so they could be considered for his governmental roles, and took the opportunity to do so. I don’t buy they weren’t aware of the value before last week, as it’s been discussed for months. I suspect it Starmer was more secure in his role they would have stayed .
Saying that they have avoided making a big scene out of it and mainly played it professionally so some credit to them. Plus if the reporting is true the amount is insufficient to achieve the SDSR targets.
Unfortunately Labour winning in Makersfield is far from a far gone conclusion. The may have just gifted Reform a seat and a lot of momentum .
Either way Starmer needs to go , defence coming a distant second to net zero, hS2 and an out of control welfare budget is naive to say the least.
Seems highly likely they will win, the reform candidate choice was a big mistake, too much negative baggage. Not the first time this has happened. Plus restore is splitting their vote. If for some strange reason they don’t win, then rainer will no doubt challenge Starmer before the year is out. Either way his days are numbered unless something major happens.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
You might end up with a lurch to the left if Starmer vacates.
The inability to reform welfare as a back-to-work vehicle to pay for defence is very telling about the party as a whole and its inability to understand that multi generational benefits are deeply damaging as are the cultures around housing benefit spending.
Statements of the obvious I would have thought- but clearly beyond the wit of the current Cabinet. Realistically, the new Defence Secretary will shortly have to confront the same obstinacy as his predecessor (if Starmer was ever going to buck his ideas up he would have done so before the by-election), so it will be interesting to see if Jarvis will also have the necessary strength of character to resign rather than trying to sell more ‘smoke and mirrors’ to the public.
Dan ‘I’m going to get more money for defence’ Jarvis has already been told he isn’t getting it so where does that leave him?
It leaves him cutting things out of the DIP or pushing them far out to 2035 and beyond when we will supposedly reach 3.5%. It will be a fudge, but allow them to claim they are enacting the SDR and meeting NATO targets.
Jacko, several things might happen – Starmer and Reeves could lose their jobs before the year is out and a new Labour Leader/PM might give Defence a bit more money….or Trump could so berate Starmer for insufficient Defence spneding at the G7 summit and the NATO summit that Starmer gives Defence a bit more.
Not really what I meant Graham,he wanted more money,he knows there isn’t enough does he do a Healy or muddle on?
As for any different Labour leadership giving any more money to defence? They need it for doctors and cycle/walkways!
Is there an option to reduce the SSNs from 12 to 8-9 or stretch out timelines for the full 12bto save a few quid or spend on other needy requirements?
This might be a bit silly but is the UK spending too much on its drones, as in backing too many types of drones? Can this be rationalised?
What’s happening with UK ship exports, any news on AH140s to Denmark, NZ, others? Can the AH140/T31 be offered to the USN for its light frigate requirement or, what about the T26?
Is there an option to reduce the SSNs from 12 to 8-9 or stretch out timelines for the full 12bto save a few quid or spend on other needy requirements?
This might be a bit silly but is the UK spending too much on its drones, as in backing too many types of drones? Can this be rationalised?
What’s happening with UK ship exports, any news on AH140s to Denmark, NZ, others? Can the AH140/T31 be offered to the USN for its light frigate requirement or, what about the T26?
*No idea why its doubled, sorry about this as no duplication tag showed.
Don’t keep giving our money away and spend it on this country and the Defense of this Nation, because if we cannot stand up then everything else falls.
I thought the £18 billion was just to plug the existing MoD shortfall. Anything else like drones, space, ships, subs, cyber was going to have to be on top of that in the Defence Investment Plan.
Don’t see why the UK does not now bite the bullet and invest in UK owned industry to come up with the goodies, and that way keep spend in the UK to help revitalise the UK economy.
That does not always mean re-inventing the wheel – just get back some basic capabilities and keep costs down. For example new RAF jet training aircraft could be updated versions of the Jet Provost and Gnat. Both of which could also help “give mass” when things hit the fan if they are wired up for shooty things in the first place. I see Spain and the USM are getting rid of their Harriers. Now there is a quick win if the UK was minded to stick them on aircraft carriers and shore based facilities for QRA drone defence.
😳
I see a few issues, it’s never as easy as it sounds.
Our Carriers are designed for F35, not Harrier.
On UAV Defence:
What shore based facilities would you put them in?
Apart from any legacy knowledge remaining amongst our existing pilots, thats a new OCU, new training stream.
And wouldn’t it just be easier to buy lots of Rapid Sentry or a suitable AA gun system.
On the Dip, it’s not always noted that there is also the previously agreed yearly uplift.
Modern versions of the Folland Gnat and Jet Provost, just wow! RAF used the Provost when I started following matters but the Gnats before my time.
How about Hawker Hunter? Now there’s a plane.
Is it even possible to resurrect old types with new materials and they’d be airworthy?
I don’t know why people keep talking about resurrecting the Harrier. Production ended decades ago, and the only reason that a small number of them are still airworthy is because they’ve had a steady supply of spare parts available from all the other airframes being scrapped. They’re hard to fly, they’re underpowered, they lack modern sensors, avionics and weapons integration and are not remotely stealthy. They were brilliant platforms by the standards of 1982.
Yes, I recall that many Reds pilots came from the Harrier force.
With all that true of Harrier, I don’t know what to say with a Gnat!
Is taking an old but proven design and using modern methods even feasible?
I doubt?
On your comment on the resurrection of the Harrier, it doesn’t need to be a literal next iteration of but if whatever comes after the F35Bs especially unmanned it could be a “Harrier like Ghost Bat” wingman? Maybe that’s over the top. I just hope the UK industry doesn’t miss any upcoming opportunities to further develop its own unique technologies. There was the supersonic Harrier prototype that didn’t get anywhere, but what if it did?
I’m talking about having a mindset to quickly and cheaply acquire what is needed to defend the UK and deter foes. This could help revitalize British industry and not always use exotic technologie. There are many old proven designs and technologies that could do the job – especially to provide combat mass cheaply.
Such an example would be the purchase 2nd (or even purchase back) of Harriers to plug a gap, as they are now on the market. It should not be beyond the wit of man to stick a dozen Harriers on both carriers. This could be for short rage over the horizon defence. Similarly if the UK is going to start confiscating Russian ships, with prowling Russian destroyers nearby and no suitably armed British frigates or destroyers available, then shore-based resources are needed along the coast armed with land based anti-ship missiles. Even Harriers dispersed in woods with short runways would be of use against over the horizon threats. There are still plenty of sites capable of that.
The RAF training aircraft problem is just an example of how going back a few generations to proven aircraft could solve multiple problems without costing the earth. The Americans ae going to flying 100-year old B52s. The old Jet Provost (Strikemaster with shooty bits) could be both basic training and ground attack/anti drone. The Gnat is a great low-cost fast jet trainer with a simple engine that works, that was good enough in its day for fast jet training and the Red Spagers. Stick Link 16 on it and a couple of AIM 9s or even Meteors on it and you have added air defence.
OK, if you like Hunters then start re-making Hunter T7s instead – whatever. Just do something quickly! Like Sheffield Forgemasters it may need a new UK Gov “state owned” company to do it.
Hi Albert.
Thanks. I get where you’re coming from overall, I just doubt the realism of doing any of it in a high tech modern military, and finding the people to maintain and operate them.
Though I have always supported the idea of having tiers in a military to provide cheaper kit to help with the balance of quality vs quantity, which is along the lines you suggest. But of more modern types, not using old warbird designs.
I’m sure in a “War of the Worlds” scenario where we’ve been invaded, the military is defeated then the gloves are off and one uses literally anything that moves, but not in a modern NATO military.
Link 16 and Meteor on a Gnat!!
Love it.
Just my own opinion mate.
As I think you know, I am always a bit “out there” blue sky thinking. However, there is a serious point behind my comments about how defence spending needs to be re-thought, and not just to the benefit of overseas owned companies and Governments.
I invite everybody to go to the very good Aerospace Filton museum in Bristol as an example of the sorry state of affairs of what once was, and look up at the excellent Concorde and Olympus engine exhibition to see what this country used to be capable of, and therefore how far we have now fallen.
Your point being find military hardware that works now, at reasonable cost, instead of throwing huge amounts of money on pie-in-the-sky stuff that will be years in the making. Keep planning for high end hardware to be sure but not to the point of leaving the shelves bare in the interim.
Exactly….and don’t use overseas companies to do it. Keep the spend, profits and IP in the UK.
Gnats, and Hunters. Come on, they went out of service decades ago. Might as well bring back Morris Marinas and Ford Cortinas 😆
Our Light Cavalry.
How effective is a Molotov cocktail against modern armour? Use old glass milk bottles.
Issued 10 per Reserve Infantry Battalion Platoon.
Any PIAT about? No, too old, a Wombat surely?
“Expand your mind Grasshopper.”
The UK is broke. Needs to find quick and cheap ways to bootstrap back up.
We aren’t that broke pal. No modern Air Force is going to attempt to bring back an aircraft that was retired in the 70s.
Americans are still looking at the F14…. speak quietly but the RAF/MoD were at least talking about using Hunters in the first post 9/11 Afghanistan conflict – they may even have gone ahead.
Hunters did fly out of RAF Scampton. Used by a private company for DACT and red air for RAF training. But I don’t think they are operating anymore. I never saw any hunters in Afghanistan when I did my tour in 2007 with the Harrier force.
…I half-saw a fax/heard a discussion at the start of the Afghan stuff, saying something like “enthusiasts would wet their panties if they knew,” but i cant confirm if anything went ahead with Hunters. Of course there have been re-engined DC-3/C-47s around for ages, and somebody has just done similar with a “new” PBY Catalina.
RIP crew of B-52 lost yesterday.
Yep, very sad loss. Seems to have been far to many air crash incidents in the States this last few months. A F18 went down in California the other day. Fortunately the pilot ejected and was safe.
Marinas no, Cortinas yes. I hear someone is making a batch of Escort Mk1s, but I digress.
😆
My old Lotus Europa had Marina front brakes and door handles. Gob shite stuff.
Small correction, MOD said we needed £28bn over 4 years to plug the gaps. The £18bn was a compromise, which was pushed down to £15bn then £13.5bn. Unfortunately, reviving British industry is too low on the Chancellor’s list of priorities. Even when there’s a clear profit to be made for decades, with CGAP, the Treasury is unhappy to take the win.
To have a genuine “soft power” in the world today you need hard power to back it up with at the moment we have neither. But I believe that we have the money in the UK to put into defence but it is tied up companies milking not just the Defence budget but all governmental departments stating that they are saving money but in reality are in most cases doubling the cost of the service that they are replacing as well as diminishing the end result. Companies like Capita who work directly for No 11 Downing street and charged with “saving money” in the DWP pay-outs, PIP payments, Veterans war pension payments, Civil service pensions all now taking on average 18 months to 2 years to sort out to the detriment of the people desperate to get the money due to them. With the average wage of the Capita staff being £50 to 60K/ year and the upper bands in the £100’s of K/ year. Saving money debatable. Running the defence training estates we have Landmarc who think nothing of charging the MoD £1.5 million to dig a slit trench taking 8 months to do, when the RE’s could have done the same thing in a week. Then there is the profit made by these companies vanishing overseas instead of being reinvested in UK infrastructure.
I’m 100% convinced that the money needed to give the armed forces what they need is within the government capability but they need to look at these companies entrenched in the governments department creaming off the system.
Your last paragraph is spot on. Greater ministerial, departmental and vendor commercial and contractual accountability all the way down the supply chain. Reduce waste and overspend.
Why would the UK want to lead on defence? what’s the benefit to the guy in the street who is now to be told he can’t get his full basic state pension or has to wait two years for an operation.
Even if the UK guts every other budget and jacks up taxes we can’t get a budget that’s even the biggest in Europe and we will still be 10 times smaller than the US budget. How to we “lead” on defence on those terms?
The war in Ukraine led to a spike in inflation in this country. We are told to expect not just inflation from the war in Iran, but a possible financial crash. All this is as nothing compared to what the man in the street will face if China attacks Taiwan. People make parallels to the Bronze Age Collapse. All this despite the fact that we ourselves might not even be at war.
Deterrence is not just about being safe at home. It’s about a country whose economy depends on global trade keeping enough hard power to ensure the trade keeps on keeping on. If that means spending at the level of 4% of GDP, that’s what we should be spending. And when the naysayers ask, but who are you defending against, have the grace top say I don’t know, but nature abhors a vacuum and if we don’t fill that vacuum, you can bet someone else will, and we won’t like who.
Leading on defence doesn’t mean spending the most. It means knowing your mind and having the courage of your convictions.
“we can do’, repeat!
I love the authors assertion that being a world leader on net zero doesn’t cost much 😀
Top quality journalism here 🤣😂
I think most people paying bills in the UK would disagree with you, our world leading reduction in CO2 cost a great deal, hundreds of billions of pounds.
It was the right thing to do because the threat posed by climate change is far great than any political instability or military challenge but it was not cheap in the short term although its savings us billions in the long term.
I think the author was talking about the relative cost of ‘soft power’ in general- it doesn’t cost anything because it doesn’t really mean anything.
Ian,
Ummm … perhaps the judgement that “soft power” means nothing is slightly overstated, but admittedly only slightly. There is, of course, the famous quote by Joseph Stalin to the French Foreign Minister Pierre Laval in 1935 (repeated by Stalin to Churchill in 1944): “How many divisions does the Pope have?” A cynical, but relatively accurate assessment of soft power. 🤔😉
Well, c’est pope is still here and commies are not.
Well, pope is still here and commies are not.
Hi Jim Glad I’m not the only one who noticed that pearl of Wisdom, let’s see :-
1. Our move away from fossil fuels has to be gradual but we know we need it for the next 25 years but instead of using the revenue from our own Gas and Oil to help pay for the capital investment needed, we decide to ban exploration and new fields and pay £100 + Billion pa to import it.
Because that’s showing our Green Credentials. Total Bah Bah because it’s far greener to not have it pay transport costs, far less carbon emissions as we aren’t having to use Liquified Gas (it needs a lot of power to freeze it, keep it frozen and use it).
2. We have a lovely arrangement to encourage companies to invest in producing “Green Energy” by building New Nuclear, Solar and Wind farms. We let them borrow and spend money to do the build anmd operate them and they pay that back and their profit out of the price they are guaranteed for the Electricity they produce. Problem is that’s pegged at the MW price of Electricity produced by using Gas most of which is imported and presently through the roof.
3. The invisible cost of both of the above is we now less self sufficiency, no ability to fill up a Strategic Reserve on the cheap and are dependant on foreign supplies.
Other than that it’s not a bad article.
Where is the evidence that anything Britain has ever done has made any difference to climate change at all?
Crickets….
Tumbleweed….
It is noble to Serve to Lead, but this short article is a bit light on why we want to lead other than for leaderships sake.
Where are we heading in that leadership? Are we just advocating to ‘pony up’ simply to be at the head of the game?
It is all about choices in a hugely challenging financial environment. An opinion poll may tells us how important defence is, and improvements in defence are important, but it is not the first priority of the majority of Britons today and clearly not of the government.
Something more basic needs to be acted on, the instilling of ministers and people in charge of procurement and vendors, to be held more accountable for performance of their contracts regards issues of quality, monies spent and any unrealistic design and supply parameters that create poor performance, delays, shortages and overspends.
The problem we have is that our military power has been living off the 4 – 5% spent during the cold war, those platforms have now disappeared and warn out. 2% gdp is half the amount of money but the expectation is to have the power of the 4% spend, the author is right, make your choice as a government and country.
There’s a misconception that we could do defence on the cheap by using drones, this isn’t the case, drones and unmanned ships are force multipliers but we also need big expensive platforms to launch them and control them (see lyme bay for mine counter measures). Also missiles are still very effective and as also proved in Ukraine, old soviet era bombs still make big explosions and a mess of the opposition. Incidentally when does a missile become a drone?
Where does this leave us, if the UK want to have a say at the big boys table, it’s money where our mouth is time (we’ve already committed it anyway) so needs to be found. This is not allies, important again as a force multiplier but sovereign capability is the most important and not expecting other countries to pay for it.
This is the moment to the UK on a path to be a big player or to be meek on the world stage
In 1962, Dean Acheson observed that Britain had lost an empire but not found a role; and that her attempt to maintain an independent global role was played out.
Because Britain managed the end of empire without the disasters that France suffered in Indo China and Algeria, we could continue to pretend we were more important than we were in reality. That delusion continued into the 2021 integrated review and its tilt to the Indo Pacific.
We need to get real . The head of the French army recently summarized the priorities for French defence as
* Defence of France itself
* Defence of French overseas territories
* Contribution to NATO collective defence
We can do all of these so long as we don’t try to be a mini superpower.
Rather than indulging is endless discussion about shiny new equipment, we need above all to ensure that what we already have is operational.
Interesting. From a French perspective, it seems uk did not define an appropriate role such as de Gaulle defined one for France (leading the European Community/eu to maintain influence globally). Big question for uk is how it can maintain influence while losing influence within in its own region ?
This is a problem of the Prime Minister’s own making. He has that Britain should ‘lead’ on defence.
‘The prime minister, speaking at the Scottish Labour conference in Glasgow on Sunday, said he is clear Britain “will take a leading responsibility” in protecting the continent. “Instability in Europe always washes up on our shores,” he said.’ Feb 2025
The reality is very different:
‘Former National Security Adviser and Cabinet Secretary Lord Mark Sedwill, has already been thinking through the implications of Starmer’s settlement, and projecting the loss of one of Britain’s major defence roles: strategic nuclear weapons; a navy capable of operating against peer adversaries in the North Atlantic; air forces able to support our allies in northern Europe; and an army that can be deployed on the Continent in support of Nato. Hinting that this last capability is now unaffordable (bad news for the Army in other words), Sedwill posted on social media this weekend, “Britain can’t sustain a ‘balanced force’, we need integrated forces to protect the North Atlantic and High North against Russian aggression and hold their Arctic bases at risk”.
Britain has had to intervene in Europe to preserve its own sovereignty and prosperity during each of the preceding three centuries. We should be clear. This defence settlement has taken that option off the table. We have repeatedly seen in 1692, 1759, 1805, 1914 and 1940 how dangerous that is for our national security.
If Russia invades Norway in order to better protect the Kola Peninsula where much of its nuclear deterrent is based, the bulk of our oil and gas supplies will be cut off.
What, then, is the plan if the sun don’t shine and the wind refuses us its blandishments? Where, now, is our conventional deterrent to guard against such Russian expansionism?
Mark Sedwill should, of course, declare an interest:
‘Lord Sedwill is President of the Special Forces Club and of the Special Boat Service Association, a Vice-President of the Royal Navy & Royal Marines Charities (RNRMC), and an Honorary Colonel in the Royal Marines’
Interservice partisanship is the bane of Britain’s national security interests. The effectively tri-service U.S. Matine Corps is very similar in size to the entire UK armed forces. The new Defence Secretary could do us all a favour and offer up a rationalisation of MoD in Whitehall into a single combined service staff. CDS already heads up all three service staffs. Why should he not command one unified staff, with useful headcount savings?
Our interventions on the European mainland were essentially undertaken to be prevent a single power achieving hegemony.
Against France from 1692 to 1815, Germany in 1914 and 1939 and I would suggest the USSR from 1945.
But there is no such threat at present. Russia, far less powerful than the USSR, has failed to overcome Ukraine, and now faces adversaries from northern Norway to the Black sea coast. European NATO countries vastly outmatch Russia in population and wealth.
There is no good reason for Britain to make a large scale land force contribution like a latter day BAOR. Instead we should focus our efforts and resources on naval and air capability.
That doesn’t mean no army, there are other threats it may have to confront beyond Europe.
Our interventions were made purely out of self interest. Today is no different.
Contingency planning, deterrence, dictates prep. for any number of possible scenarios.
The politics of most of Europe is in turmoil; ‘populism’. Poland and Germany are rearming. Either or both could turn on a sixpence politically. The threat of Russian influence is political as much as military. And they have, will continue to have petrodollars in abundance…with which to buy/suborn politicians across Europe.
This state of affairs will be with us for the foreseeable future. Russia has a demographic problem which it is attempting to solve by the reconquest of previously USSR territories. It will not give up on Ukraine, only pause if necessary. It will move on the Baltic States in due course. War between NATO and Russia is inevitable if Russia is not deterred.
We must play our part in that deterrence and we have committed ourselves to doing that. Let us not forget that, in failing to live up to the security assurances that we gave to Ukraine in 1994, ‘Perfidious Albion’ has, in some measure, contributed to the conflagration that we now see in Eastern Europe.
SDR 2025 sets out what we must do. We ignore that at our great peril…
Even if your pessimistic view is correct, what contribution from UK would be more effective? A smallish expeditionary ground force or the ability to supply thousands of PGMs and drones as we are doing for Ukraine. The BEF of 1940, 4x the size of the whole British army today, achieved nothing. Retaining control of the air and sea kept Britain free to continue the war.
The important thing here is neither pessimism or optimism. It is deterrence since the contingencies to be planned against are myriad.
The SDR makes clear what is required to deter.
‘military force projected from the land—and sustained by land-based resources—will continue to play a fundamental role in deterring and, if required, defeating adversaries.. The Army…must be prepared to support a renewed focus on national resilience and global crisis response, as well as playing an expeditionary role—able to seize, hold, or retake ground, primarily in support of NATO in mainland Europe..A ‘20-40-40’ mix is likely to be necessary: 20% crewed platforms to control 40% ‘reusable’ platforms (such as drones that survive repeated missions), and 40% ‘consumables’ such as rockets, shells, missiles, and ‘one-way effector’ drones. Investment in attack and surveillance drones should be prioritised, along with counter-drone systems.’
‘The Army must modernise the two divisions and the Corps HQ that it provides to NATO as one of the Alliance’s two Strategic Reserves Corps (SRC)…The first division should comprise…three manoeuvre brigades with armoured and mechanised capabilities, support brigade, and associated enablers. Planning should include the integration of the Royal Marines Commando Force into the SRC when appropriate…The Army must accelerate the development and deployment of its new ‘Recce-Strike’ approach—combining existing capabilities and technologies, such as armoured platforms, with constantly evolving technology—as part of its efforts to modernise the SRC.’
Why is this so important?
Plus ca change etc
‘As a bare minimum, it is the role of the Atlantic army to replace the strategic nuclear deterrent as the instrument with which the
attack option is foreclosed to the Soviet Union. But that is a bare minimum. In a modern strategy the Atlantic army must provide for the West a sense of security to a degree that will encourage it to act and react in respect to global events with confidence.
That forecloses to the Soviet Union the options of intimidation, blackmail, and political leverage’
There is an interview with Al Carns on the telegraph’s YouTube channel,got to wonder in parts why he is a Labour MP.
Not a bad listen though.
Meanwhile, the new DS has said in the Commons that “Reeves cares deeply about national security”
Hope he’s not a yes man, dropped in.
Reeves also sat next to the new DS.
Pure THEATRE, much like the dubious/fake/acted film of the RM aboard the tanker.
Do they really think people are that gullible that because she sat next to him she “cares”
She cares so deeply that she couldn’t find an extra 5 billion to stop a loyal DS from resigning.
CHARLATANS. You fool nobody save your supporters with red tinted glasses.
Indeed he told us he was going to get extra money,obviously he hasn’t and yet he toes the party line and will ‘work’ tirelessly to carry out his job🙄 No doubt the boarding happened but it’s a bit naff for the RMs coming down the stairs weapons in the shoulder and the camera man is already down there😀
Yes, commented on that elsewhere.
All a bit PR and fake for me, though not saying the boarding didn’t happen.
Just let them do their jobs without the spin. I’d imagine the blokes there thought it a bit pathetic having to “perform” for a camera after the event?
Unless it’s stock film from training elsewhere.
The problem is that Politicians of all flavours answer to the electorate. When Mrs Bradshaw from Somewhershire insists that they need more beds in the local hospital, bullets and bombs are the furthest thing from the MP’s mind.
For me the only way to resolve this, it to ‘remove the military’ from the budget equation. Exactly how, I’ll leave others to decide however, the MOD should be given an annual income of X. The MOD then decides whether to buy more Typhoons, Subs, or Tanks. This figure would grow with inflation each year. The trick is, what is X.
The less talk there is of GDP etc, over time people will or should stop talking about bombs or hospital beds. Maybe the MOD Budget should be set every 4 years… the same year the government calls a general election? That figure should then be set in stone, tied up with gaffa tape!