It seems to be about redistributing the cash to meet new priorities with a ten year commitment rather than four years, with some "lesser" programmes being cancelled to free up. Glad Oz has finally woken up, my relations there think the government posture was to roll on its back and ask for its tummy to be tickled, i.e. let business take the money and ignore the strategic and human rights issues.
The new strategy says that the government will no longer use a GDP-related target for defence spending
So no less if GDP goes down and no more if it goes up?
@tartare, I think a mixed force is more likely to be the way forward. The USN is looking to forward deploy and "pier launch" its XLUUVs. I would have thought the RAN might be better off with sub launchable LUUVs but I agree that would depend on the capabilities required. From what I understand the USN is looking at lots of USVs and changing the balance of its surface fleet but the XLUUV an LUUV look a long way off replacing sub-surface platforms. Although the RN has just started dipping its toes into XLUUV waters my interpretation is it is being looked at as a supplement not a replacement.
As a side point, are the F-35s still getting the JSM/NSM?
I am not fully sold on the anti-(major)warship capabilities of SPEAR and wish the UK F-35s had something with more range and punch. I am unclear if FC/ASW - CVS401 - Perseus will be integrated, from what I've read it will be either F35 or Typhoon. I believe the US has or is working towards external carriage of AGM-158s on F-35s